On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:29 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 18:21 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > I'm working on a static analysis extension to GCC via my
>> > gcc-python-plug
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> I'm working on a static analysis extension to GCC via my
> gcc-python-plugin [1]
>
> The analysis is interprocedural (memory leak detection, as it happens).
> I have it working on one translation unit at a time, and I'm attempting
> to get it
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
> Richard Guenther skribis:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther skribis:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>&g
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Richard Guenther skribis:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther skribis:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>&
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Richard Guenther skribis:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther skribis:
>>>
>>>> At -O0 no virtual operands are produced. TODO_rebuild_alias only
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Richard Guenther skribis:
>
>> At -O0 no virtual operands are produced. TODO_rebuild_alias only computes
>> points-to sets which are in itself not useful.
>>
>> What do you want to achieve with TODO_rebuild_
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Consider the attached plug-in, which adds a new dummy pass after the
> “ssa” pass, with ‘TODO_rebuild_alias’ as its start flags:
>
>
>
> When compiling with -O0 a non-trivial file with that plug-in, one ends
> up with:
>
> numb
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you need to change varasm.c at all? The hunks seem to be
>> completely separate of the attribute.
>
> Because static constructors have fields in the original order, not the
> reversed order. Otherwise code like this is miscompiled:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2012/10/5 Richard Guenther :
>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> 2012/10/4 Richard Guenther :
>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ilya Enkovich
>>>> wrote:
&g
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2012/10/4 Richard Guenther :
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I fall into ssa verification failure when try to pass field's
>>> DECL_SIZE as an oper
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jack Howarth
>> wrote:
>>> Is libbacktrace currently functional in gcc trunk and is it expected
>>> to function on darwin? While I could understa
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> ChangeLog missing, new functions need a toplevel comment documenting
>> function, argument and return value as per coding conventions.
>
> Any review of the patch itself? I know the overhead is not there...
Why do you need to change varasm.c
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/04/2012 01:42 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> So I suppose the testcase that would be "valid" but break with using
>> pure would be instead
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>int x = in
truct foo* f1)
>> > {
>> > memcpy (f0, f1, sizeof(struct foo));
>> > }
>> >
>> > In gcc 4.4, I get the desired inline memcpy: ...
>> > In gcc 4.7, however, I get inlined byte-by-byte copies: ...
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:58:54PM +0
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:08:02PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> But isn't it a fact that it _cannot_ modify init_count? If the second call
>> is CSEable then it cannot have side-effects that are observable at
>&
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 10/04/2012 09:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> Ugh. Especially with the above (you can DCE those calls) makes this
>>> severly mis-
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/04/2012 09:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> Ugh. Especially with the above (you can DCE those calls) makes this
>> severly mis-specified ... and any implementation error-prone (look what
>> mess
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/04/2012 08:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> If the result
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Walter Lee wrote:
>
> On TILE-Gx, I'm observing a degradation in inlined memcpy/memset in
> gcc 4.6 and later versus gcc 4.4. Though I find the problem on
> TILE-Gx, I think this is a problem for any architectures with
> SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set to 1.
>
> Consider
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Here's my current patch for the bitfield reversal feature I've been
> working on for a while, with an RX-specific pragma to apply it
> "globally". Could someone please review this? It would be nice
> to get it in before stage1 closes again..
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> In C++ there is a common idiom called "initialize on first use". In its
> simplest form it looks like
>
> int& lazy_i()
> {
> static int i = init;
> return i;
> }
>
> If the initialization is expensive or order-sensitive, this is a useful
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I fall into ssa verification failure when try to pass field's
> DECL_SIZE as an operand for CALL_EXPR. The fail occurs if field's size
> is not a constant. In such case DECL_SIZE holds a VAR_DECL and I need
> to find it's proper SSA_NA
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Joern Rennecke
> wrote:
>> I'll have to prepare a few more patches to (supposedly) generic
>> code to support the ARCompact port, which we (Synopsys and Embecosm)
>> would li
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> I'll have to prepare a few more patches to (supposedly) generic
> code to support the ARCompact port, which we (Synopsys and Embecosm)
> would like contribute in time for gcc 4.8.
>
> How much time is left till we switch from phase 1 to phas
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM, srinivas dama wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see there is predicate REG_EXPR for getting declaration node for a REG rtx.
> It would be helpful If I get an equivalent predicate for a SUBREG rtx.
> I couldn't find such thing.
>
> My requirement is :
>
> I need find out if an op
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov
wrote:
> Hi,
> I noticed some minor regression with singed integer operations in "the
> proprietary" code since
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45232. Of course, I could
> use "-fwrapv" flag but my question is: why we could not add
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> When a plugin calls fatal_error, the compilation naturally fails,
> but the last error message is misleading, it says
> (while getting a bug in the MELT plugin for example)
>
>
> cc1: fatal error: MELT plugin module comp
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Andreast Tobler
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while testing some patches fro Michael M, I noticed that disable-checking
> seems broken on trunk. I saw this on x86_64-freebsd and powerpc64-freebsd.
>
> Is this issue already known?
> If not, usual bug report with preprocessed
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Hi, Ian,
>
> This patch fixed the bootstrap problem, as well as the problem posted
> in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01441.html
>
> However, the libstdc++ problem is not fixed, they are related to the
> my line_table implementat
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
> On 2012-09-13 08:46 , Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/builtin-location.C
> > ===
> >
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> > > Alternately, we could use Richi's approach I suppose (what happened to
> > > that
&g
allows us to get rid of the macros in vec.h that wrap the
functions using the default argument trick for -fmem-report. Note
that --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats use of the builtins needs
to be conditional on support for them - so beware of some more
#ifdefery or configury before you do this cha
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:10 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 17:20 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> > Is it possible for you to post your work-in-progress code somewhere?
>>
>> Attached.
>
> Many thanks for posting this!
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> After a hiatus, I've restarted work on an API for GCC plugins -
> specifically, a C API (given that my plugin is written in C, I have more
> interest in that than a C++ API).
>
> BTW, how many other GCC plugins are written in C?
>
> It's still
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I'm CCing the gcc mailing list too since I suppose it is an accident
> that it wasn't in the message I'm replying to)
>
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:22:27AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> What do you think of the following plan for turning cgraph into
>> a class hierarchy? We cannot finish it until we have gengtype
>> understanding single inheritance, but we can start changing APIs
>> in preparation.
>
> Good you told me, I wa
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I am getting the following error when I am trying to build the trunk
> on x86_64 SuSE Linux. My SVN head is at revision 190930. Is anyone else
> finding this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54478
>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> To take full advantage of the conversion to C++, we will need to use
I'm not sure what "full advantage" of single-inheritance vs. composition is.
> single inheritance in some of our garbage collected structures. To
> that end, we need to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Deepti Sharma
wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>> Richard Guenther
>> Sent: 31 May 2012 14:27
>> To: Mohamed Shafi
>&
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for such a stupid question, but assuming that the GCC trunk (e.g. svn
>> rev 190745)
>> did already switch (during my holidays, so I did not follow that) to C++
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
> Hello,
> This is a similar problem I was having yesterday, and I need to
> understand how to fix this. This is somewhat similar to my previous
> inquiry, I do apologize. In my compiler pass I am inserting a new
> GIMPLE assignment statement aft
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > Would it be more productive to ensure that existing tools, like
> > valgrind, are effective with gcc?
>
> Indeed. Richard's patch strikes me as the way to go with
> the issue he raised.
It
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 8/15/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2012 Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > > Prot
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 18:26, schrieb Gabriel Dos Reis:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > > A few points to consider:
> > > > * relation of __builtin_function_location to C99 (and C++11)
> > > >
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Prototype below - fire away on bikeshedding names.
>
> Make it mirror the preprocessor names that people are used to, and do away
> with the _loc_: __built
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> > On 08/15/2012 12:07 PM, Gabrie
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 08/15/2012 12:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >
> >> You might try to encode/package information with the
> >> parameters T and A, but essentially you will hit the wall
> >> that __FILE__
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > I face an issue with replacing macros with C++ functions and the
> > way we implement gather-detailed-mem-stats. Currently the
> > mem-stat info is
I face an issue with replacing macros with C++ functions and the
way we implement gather-detailed-mem-stats. Currently the
mem-stat info is passed at the call site of functions via macros
like
#define VEC_safe_grow_cleared(T,A,V,I) \
(VEC_safe_grow_cleared_1 (&(V), (int)
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM, wrote:
> Where does one go to report issues with ISL?
>
> Since GCC doesn't build without it, I'm trying to install ISL from sources.
> That doesn't work. It accepts --with-gmp but there is nothing in the
> Makefile to pay attention to that -- the compiles are
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> I wonder why we cache loop-depth at all ... given that it is a "simple"
>> dereference bb->loop_father->superloops->base.prefix.num. For
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher
>>> wrote:
>>&
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steven Bosscher
>>> wrote:
&
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>> Lots of test cases fail with the attached patch.
>>
>> Lots s
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> Lots of test cases fail with the attached patch.
>
> Lots still fail after correcting the verifier :-)
>
> 920723-1.c: In function 'f':
> 920723-1.c:14:1: error: bb 13 has loop
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Elmar Krieger wrote:
> Hi Ian, hi Richard, hi Andi!
>
> Many thanks for your comments.
>
>
The slowdown is not the same with other files, so I'm essentially sure
that this specific source file has some 'feature' that catches GCC at
the wrong leg. Thi
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Elmar Krieger writes:
>>
>> The slowdown is not the same with other files, so I'm essentially sure
>> that this specific source file has some 'feature' that catches GCC at
>> the wrong leg. This raises my hopes that one of the GCC experts wants
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Elmar Krieger wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> while I fully understand that GCC's steadily advancing optimization
> capabilities can't be 'for free', the latest versions have become almost
> unusably slow for me:
>
> With simple optimization -O, compiling a certain C source
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've had this flagged to look at "later" for quite long now...
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 07:34:24AM +, Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is related to pr45605.C test.
>>
>> Reduced testcase
>>
>> s
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:40:57PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> Senthil Kumar Selvaraj writes:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > The following program, when compiled with -O0 -g3 (x86_64 target, but
>> > doesn't seem to matter), shows wrong va
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:11:04 +0300 (EEST)
> Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>
>> I got no replies, so I guess there is no will to move GCC to -O3 by
>> default, so I shouldn't bother submitting a patch?
>>
>> As a reminder, cc1 is 0-4% faster but almos
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Parang Saraf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am facing some weird issues with the optimization flags. I tried
> posting this in the gcc-help but got no response. Here is my query:
>
> I can see the flags enabled for each optimization level using "gcc -Q
> -On -help=optimizers" (
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> I saw massive FORTRAN failures on trunk with both SPEC CPU 2006
>>> and GCC FORTRAN testsuite. Is this a known problem? Should I open a bug
>>> report?
>>
>>
>> I assum
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> We are about ready to have the cxx-conversion branch merged back into trunk.
>
> This merge will change the following:
>
> 1- The compiler can only be built with a C++ compiler.
>
> 2- The tree macros can be called from gdb (when GCC is buil
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Working on private backend. Need to add some knobs to tune inlining.
> Code (with name of backend substituted to "my"):
>
> in my.c file:
>
> #undef TARGET_OPTION_DEFAULT_PARAMS
> #define TARGET_OPTION_DEFAULT_PARAMS my_option_
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 26/07/12 15:04, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>
>>> My target has 16bit chars.
>>
>>
>> As I explained before, support for such targets is extremely limited and
>> bitrotten (this applies whether
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Gary Funck wrote:
>
> I have been experimenting with the graphite optimizer, based on GCC trunk, and
> cloog-isl. I started with the attached simple "C" program, which has this
> basic structure.
>
> #define N 2
> int a[N][N], b[N], c[N];
> [...]
> for (i =
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 26/07/12 13:27, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would the fill value in a memset call be required to fit in a host
>>> char?
>>
>>
>> Obviously because of the implementation detail of
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My target has 16bit chars.
> What I am seeing is that in a memset call, the call is not inlined by GCC
> whenever fill value is bigger than host char.
>
> This seems to be due to the code (GCC 4.6.5) in target_char_cast
> (builtins.c
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/07/2012 11:12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, David Brown
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/07/12 17:30, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 25/07/12 17:30, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Selvaraj, Senthil_Kumar
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Declaring a function with __attribute__((optimize("O0")) turns o
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have been experimenting with marking s
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Selvaraj, Senthil_Kumar
wrote:
> Declaring a function with __attribute__((optimize("O0")) turns off inlining
> for the translation unit (atleast) containing the function (see output at the
> end). Is this expected behavior?
Not really. The optimize attribute pr
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been experimenting with marking specific functions to be auto-
> vectorized in GCC, but have had problems getting it to work.
>
> It seems the optimize attribute works sometimes, but only if the function it
> is used on
an
> simply add a new location_t number. The pros of this approach is that the
> changes is kept minimum. The cons of this approach is that location_t is
> globally numbered. What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
>
>>
>> There would be one such associat
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, wrote:
> Hi all,
> I would like to know if GCC provides an option to get a detailed report on
> the optimization actually performed by the compiler. For example with the
> Intel C compiler it is possible using the -opt-report. I don't want to look
> at the ass
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2012 5:28 PM, "Dimitrios Apostolou" wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying to write a small script that shows emails addresses for all
>> committers of last year, for all files a patch touches. In the commit logs
>> however all c
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> I have been using the option -flto-partition=none recently (with Debian
> testing's gcc-4.7.1-2), but I'm not convinced - based on the documentation -
> that I am using it correctly.
>
> I have:
>
> for C source code:
>
> CCFLAGS := -g -Ofast -f
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As far as I know 4.3 and 4.4 are no longer maintained and 4.3.6 and 4.4.7
> were the last of their respective lines however if someone is kind enough to
> look at the following, I would be extremely grateful. I found a bug in 4.3
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>>> Since r188786, expmed.c has this code:
>>
>>> This results in warnings for expmed.c during bootstrap on
>>> powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu:
>>>
>>> ../../trunk/gcc/expmed.c: I
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> > [... mangling change ...]
>>
>> That would not address the issue of interoperability of a C++03 library
>> with a C++11 program or vice ver
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:01:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 07/03/2012 03:18 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> >It seems that ELF symbol versioning could be useful for this purpose. If
>> >we were to extend the visibility attribute to also
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (mo
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.5.4 has been released.
GCC 4.5.4 is the last bug-fix release containing important fixes
for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.5.3. This release is
available from the FTP servers listed at:
http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
Please do not contact me di
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> First, let get to the heart of the matter. That is the behavior of
>> compiler.
>
> That's a distraction in the context of a patch to improve a feature
> that's already present in the testsuite machi
The GCC 4.5.4 release has been tagged and is being created right now.
The 4.5 branch is thus now closed.
We have now two actively maintained releases as planned, 4.6.x and 4.7.x.
Richard.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I faced a problem with usage of force_gimple_operand function for
> specific tree. I have a TARGET_MEM_REF tree node whose address I want
> to pass as argument to the function call. I use build_fold_addr_expr
> to get address tree
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:37AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> > Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the
>> > linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same
>> > command lines. I don't like tha
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and
>>> install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just be
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> > On 2012-06-22 06:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> Do I understand correctly that inlining the builtin at expansion time is
>> >> no
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-06-22 06:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Do I understand correctly that inlining the builtin at expansion time is not
>> good because the implementation detail may depend on how libitm was
>> configured?
A release candidate for GCC 4.5.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5.4-RC-20120625
and shortly its mirrors.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux. Please test it and report any issues to bugzilla.
If all goes well, I'd like to rele
The GCC 4.5 branch is now frozen for the final release off that branch
and will then be officially closed.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Richard.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Peter A. Felvegi" writes:
>
>> My question is: wouldn't it be possible to print a warning when a jmp
>> to itself or trivial infinite recursion is generated? The code
>> compiled fine w/ -Wall -Wextra -Werror w/ 4.6 and 4.7.
>
> This que
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi gentlemen.
>
> I am looking again at LTO + TM. The goal is to be able to link with the
> implemented _ITM_* functions in libitm.a, and have them inlined into the
> transaction code when profitable.
>
> To refresh everyone's memory, the o
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 12:41 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>>
>&
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it has been quiet around Graphite for a while and I think it is more than
>> time to give an update on Graphite.
>>
>> == The Status
Status
==
Now that GCC 4.7.1 is released it is time to retire the GCC 4.5 branch
with a last release - GCC 4.5.4. This gets us to the goal set during
the GCC Gathering last year - have only two maintained release branches.
There have not been very many changes on the GCC 4.5 branch since th
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Thanks for your response!
>
> On 06/19/2012 08:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Daniel Santos wrote:
>>> So before filing any feature request bugs, I figured I should bring my
>&
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Walter Landry wrote:
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>
>>> I thought you might be interested in some C++ expression template
>>> benchmarks
1 - 100 of 2444 matches
Mail list logo
