On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 13:14 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > Sebastian, I really think you are worrying too much.
>
> right.
>
> > It's pretty rare that it will take going all the way to omega to be able
> > to disambiguate two dependences.
> >
>
> for dependence tes
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> Sebastian, I really think you are worrying too much.
right.
> It's pretty rare that it will take going all the way to omega to be able
> to disambiguate two dependences.
>
for dependence tests we exercise only a limited part of omega, but now
suppose that we'll use om
Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to ask GCC users in general: how many are using these params?
We use them at my current employer, mainly to remove limits which were
imposed to keep compile time under control. We have code which needs
to run as fast as possible, for which com
On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 01:12 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > The problem with using time as a cutoff is that you then get results that
> > can't be reproduced reliably. Better to count something that is a feature
> > of the algorithm, e.g. number of executions of some inner loop,
Joe Buck wrote:
> The problem with using time as a cutoff is that you then get results that
> can't be reproduced reliably. Better to count something that is a feature
> of the algorithm, e.g. number of executions of some inner loop, number of
> nodes visited, or the like,
On the other hand, it
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
Algorithms that are sometimes exponential can still be used if there is
a cutoff mechanism, to abort the algorithm if it exceeds a budget. This
assumes that we can then fall back to an algorithm that might produce
inferior results, but
Andrew wrote:
>> No threads in gcc, please.
>
> Why? If this is only for double checking, why not?
Sorry, I missed that boehm-gc already uses threads.
Ignore me, I'm just a cranky old-school programmer...
but still, if there's a way to implement the checker
without using threads, that would sur
On Aug 9, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Daniel Kegel wrote:
No threads in gcc, please.
Why? If this is only for double checking, why not?
-- Pinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I stand corrected. As a practical implementation we can have a
mechanism as push/pop timevar, that would monitor the time and space
of an algorithm and that can cancel the computation for failing on a
safe approximation. As a first concretization, I was thinking t
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:59:28PM +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > Algorithms that are sometimes exponential can still be used if there is
> > a cutoff mechanism, to abort the algorithm if it exceeds a budget. This
> > assumes that we can then fall back to an algorithm that might
Joe Buck wrote:
> Algorithms that are sometimes exponential can still be used if there is
> a cutoff mechanism, to abort the algorithm if it exceeds a budget. This
> assumes that we can then fall back to an algorithm that might produce
> inferior results, but will produce something usable in reaso
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 08:35:31PM +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> I'll try to explain again the goal of the project in a shorter
> version. I have implemented a data dependence analysis, and I want to
> validate the results that it produces. For this, I'm proposing to
> compute the same informatio
Dave Korn wrote:
>
> Well, I'll pitch in, because I also wasn't sure at first whether it was
> for real and what it was about, but I think I know now. Did you google
> "bill pugh omega solver" and do some background reading? It didn't take me
> too long to get the basic gist of what they're pr
Dan Kegel wrote:
> Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > [http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Omega%20data%20dependence%20test]
> > ...
> I can't understand a word of the proposal.
> Mabe you were trying to be funny, but it ended up being obscure.
I'm sorry. This was not my intent.
> If the average gcc developer can und
Original Message
>From: Dan Kegel
>Sent: 08 August 2005 16:41
> Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > [http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Omega%20data%20dependence%20test]
> > ...
> I can't understand a word of the proposal.
Well, I'll pitch in, because I also wasn't sure at first whether it was
for real and
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 08:40 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Sebastian Pop wrote:
>
> Since I started playing with delta debugging for
> tracking down ICEs, I've been thinking it might
> be nice to have an option to gcc to perform
> delta debugging automatically if an ICE occurs,
> and have it automatica
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> [http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Omega%20data%20dependence%20test]
> ...
I can't understand a word of the proposal.
Mabe you were trying to be funny, but it ended up being obscure.
If the average gcc developer can understand it, then
it doesn't matter that I can't, but I have a feel
17 matches
Mail list logo
