Daniel Berlin wrote:
You can't mix svn and svk commits against the same repo. It confuses svk
(not svn).
You can use svk readonly, of course.
Actually, that's not quite right. While svk's depot must only be used by
svk, the usual usage is to mirror a regular subversion repository with
svk into a sv
Hi,
I am planning to reorganize fold as suggested by Roger Sayle on IRC.
The shortest way to describe this mini project would be to develop the
tree equivalent of simplify_gen_ARITY and simplify_ARITY in the RTL
world. Doing so should reduce the number of scratch tree nodes
created when idioms l
> >
> > You can't mix svn and svk commits against the same repo. It confuses svk
> > (not svn).
> >
> > You can use svk readonly, of course.
>
> Actually, that's not quite right. While svk's depot must only be used by
> svk, the usual usage is to mirror a regular subversion repository with
> svk
On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 05:29 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
I'll keep the last branchpoint of each branch for the initial import
Won't work either... Sometimes we reuses merge labels in non-obvious
ways. top-200501-merge and top-200502-merge both exist, the two were
used for, say, treeprof
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
| Daniel Berlin wrote:
|
|>
|> And towards this end,i'm working on making blame a lot faster
|>
|>
|
| Will this also cover annotate using an -r option to go past the last
| reformatting
| delta?
|
|> Other than that, what operatio
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:49:34PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I've always found the FSF's ChangeLog policy a bit weird
> (for CVS projects - for RCS projects it's understandable).
The ChangeLog fulfills a sometimes-ignored legal requirement of the GPL:
> 2. You may modify your copy or
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Jan Reimers wrote:
>
> > Can someone verify that this is valid C++ before I submit a bug report:
> >
> > // test.C
> > template class A {static T* c;};
> >
> > class B : public A {};
> >
> > B* A::c=0;
> > // end test.C
> >
>
> At le
Joe Buck dixit:
>On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:49:34PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> I've always found the FSF's ChangeLog policy a bit weird
>> (for CVS projects - for RCS projects it's understandable).
>
>The ChangeLog fulfills a sometimes-ignored legal requirement of the GPL:
Sure, but oth
On Feb 12, 2005, at 12:06 AM, Kazu Hirata wrote:
Any comments?
I like this change.
-- Pinski
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>> >
>> > You can't mix svn and svk commits against the same repo. It confuses
>> > svk (not svn).
>> >
>> > You can use svk readonly, of course.
>>
>> Actually, that's not quite right. While svk's depot must only be used by
>> svk, the usual usage is to mirror a regular s
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 18:40 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 05:29 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I'll keep the last branchpoint of each branch for the initial import
>
> Won't work either... Sometimes we reuses merge labels in non-obvious
> ways. top-200501-merge and
For the last four years, Trikke has participated in LA Marathons Acura
Bike Tour; now were inviting you to join us. Early Sunday morning March
6th, the LA Marathon course is thick with cyclists for the 23.5 mile fun
ride. LA's city streets (Exposition, Venice, Wilshire, Olympic, Fairfax,
Vermont,
For the last four years, Trikke has participated in LA Marathons Acura
Bike Tour; now were inviting you to join us. Early Sunday morning March
6th, the LA Marathon course is thick with cyclists for the 23.5 mile fun
ride. LA's city streets (Exposition, Venice, Wilshire, Olympic, Fairfax,
Vermont,
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:13 +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
You mean the revision number of the whole checked out tree, which the
"svnversion" utility will tell you in any checked out svn tree (including
whether the tree is modified or mixed version). Giv
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 20:25 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> First of all, I totally approve of moving to Subversion.
>
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >I also plan on excluding merge tags
>
> It's not safe to exclude the most recent mergepoint tag for
> a live branch. We will lose necessary informatio
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:08 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Because if it's a show stopper, then so will be arch, monotone, or any
of our other replacements (they all either store the entire repo on your
disk, or
First of all, I totally approve of moving to Subversion.
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>I also plan on excluding merge tags
It's not safe to exclude the most recent mergepoint tag for
a live branch. We will lose necessary information for the next
merge to that branch.
You wrote elsewhere:
>Find the curr
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 20:29 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 20:25 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > (For a new, all-svn branch, there are easier ways of keeping track of that
> > revision number, like putting it in the log message for the merge.)
>
> Or using svnmerge, which d
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:38 -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 20:29 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 20:25 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > (For a new, all-svn branch, there are easier ways of keeping track of that
> > > revision number, like putting it in
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:37:52PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Jan Reimers wrote:
> >
> > > Can someone verify that this is valid C++ before I submit a bug report:
> > >
> > > // test.C
> > > template class A {static T* c;};
> >
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050211 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050211/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_4-20050211
You'll find:
Peter Soetens wrote:
> I was wondering why the above gcc parameter does not enable the use
> of the fst/fld opcodes for pentium processors, while -march=i686
> does. The Intel manuals specifically say that they can be used across
> all pentium processors.
There are 2 options to tell the compiler
hi,
i like to add a new instruction based on thumb ISA. i have added the
instruction in both as and gcc. both of them are working correctly. but when i
call ld it shows an error like
/home/.../arm-elf-ld : /home/../arm-elf/lib/libc.a(printf.o)(printf): warning :
interworking not enabled
first
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> It might make the most sense to go the auto-generation route, and then
> the standard for checkin comments would be to use the ChangeLog format.
> The ChangeLog can then be generated by just appending the entries
> together, and tacking the "legacy ChangeLog
Hi
I've found small issue in ra probably. Maybe there's bug filled out for it
already, but I can't find it.
For simple loop like that:
for( unsigned int i=0;ihttp://viewcvs.pointblue.com.pl/index.cgi/*checkout*/gj/neurony/neuron.cpp
lines 43-45.
Thanks.
--
Vercetti
On Saturday 12 February 2005 13:23, Tommy Vercetti wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've found small issue in ra probably. Maybe there's bug filled out for it
> already, but I can't find it.
With what you've reported here, we can't help you.
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html, "Reporting Bugs", and file
a b
ou've reported here, we can't help you.
> Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html, "Reporting Bugs", and file
> a bug report.
Don't have to CC me, I'm on the list.
it's today's gcc:
gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.0 20050212 (experimental)
I've attached link
Kazu Hirata wrote:
I am planning to reorganize fold as suggested by Roger Sayle on IRC.
good for you! reorganizing fold is an excellent idea.
The shortest way to describe this mini project would be to develop the
tree equivalent of simplify_gen_ARITY and simplify_ARITY in the RTL
world. Doing so s
On Saturday 12 February 2005 13:23, Tommy Vercetti wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've found small issue in ra probably. Maybe there's bug filled out for it
> already, but I can't find it.
>
> For simple loop like that:
>
> for( unsigned int i=0;i wagi[i] = 0;
> }
and on ultrasparc it w
Nathan Sidwell writes:
>
> I question if it is better to fold early. As I've said before, I think
> the optimizations that fold performs should be turned into a proper SSA
> optimization phase% -- that can be repeatedly applied as necessary. In the
> front end, folding should not generally
Hi Nathan,
> I question if it is better to fold early. As I've said before, I think
> the optimizations that fold performs should be turned into a proper SSA
> optimization phase% -- that can be repeatedly applied as necessary. In the
> front end, folding should not generally be done. I see two
Kazu,
Maybe we can have an early fold and a general fold. The former would
handle constant expressions for front ends. The latter is a full
fledged version but optimized to handle GIMPLE statements.
hm, we may be in violent agreement :) It depends what you mean
by 'early fold'. You say it would
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I question if it is better to fold early. As I've said before, I think
> the optimizations that fold performs should be turned into a proper SSA
> optimization phase% -- that can be repeatedly applied as necessary.
As for a proper tree-ssa optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19922
--
Vercetti
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:33:42 -0700 (MST), Roger Sayle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > I question if it is better to fold early. As I've said before, I think
> > the optimizations that fold performs should be turned into a proper SSA
> > optimization p
> I don't know whether these operations should be part of the same SSA
> optimization or not. #2 is more of a constant propagation kind of
> thing I guess. #1 is the kind of thing that has made const-fold so
> complicated. #1 is the important thing to add to the SSA optimizers,
> isn't it?
Yes.
I
Hi Nathan,
> hm, we may be in violent agreement :) It depends what you mean
> by 'early fold'. You say it would handle constant expressions for FEs
> -- isn't that the same as what I described as a constant expression
> evaluator?
Yes.
> After all, if it is just for constant exprs, it is requi
Kazu,
Can a compile-time constant appearing in an initializer be as wild as
the following?
0 ? (foo () + 9) : (3 + 5)
Here (foo () + 9) does not fold to a constant, but the whole
expression does fold to 8.
Well, it depends on the FE's language definition :) For C and C++ the
above is not a const
> * Project Title
I. SMS (Modulo Scheduling) Improvements.
>
> * Project Contributors
Mostafa Hagog
>
> * Dependencies
No dependencies.
>
> * Delivery Date
Ready, currenly committed to the autovect-branch.
>
> * Description
>
> Describe the project *in detail*.
>
> What will you be doi
Please discard the previous message it was send by mistake.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/02/2005 20:34:57:
>
>
>
>
> > * Project Title
> I. SMS (Modulo Scheduling) Improvements.
>
> >
> > * Project Contributors
> Mostafa Hagog
>
> >
> > * Dependencies
> No dependencies.
>
> >
> > * Delivery
> Right - using svn programs to directly modify the svk depot (which is it's
> local 'repository'), is touchy. You *can* do it, but you have to be quite
> careful about the svk:* properties used to track merges and mirrors.
> Generally there's no need, other than perhaps using a read-only client t
Roger,
However, the utility of early fold to the GCC compiler is much greater
than simply compile-time evaluating expressions with constant operands.
One of the reasons that fold is so fast, is that it can rely on the fact
that all of a trees operands have already been folded. In fact, much
of the
On Feb 12, 2005, at 12:57, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Well, it depends on the FE's language definition :) For C and C++ the
above is not a constant-expression as the language defines it. I can
see a couple of obvious ways to deal with this with an FE specific
constant expression evaluator,
1) during p
Geert Bosch wrote:
Front ends should be responsible for doing any constant folding that
their language definition requires. Otherwise, you'd get the strange
situation that legality of a program depends on the strength of the
optimizers, compilation flags used or even target properties.
I entirely a
On Feb 12, 2005, at 14:57, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I entirely agree. Unfortunately what we have now is not that --
fold is doing both optimization and (some) C & C++ semantic stuff.
Your proposal to have the tree folders check wether the program
obeys C/C++ languages semantics seems fundamentally fl
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| It might make the most sense to go the auto-generation route, and then
ChangeLogs entries, when properly done (by people like RTH or Roger
Sayle), carry highly valuable information about what the purpose of a
change-set is; not just the code. I'm of
As several front-end people have suggested, calling fold whilst
constructing parse trees shouldn't be necessary (as shown by the
shining examples of g77 and GNAT).
I don't follow. GNAT certainly calls fold for every expression it makes.
In reality, many of the transformations p
On Feb 12, 2005, at 15:58, Richard Kenner wrote:
As several front-end people have suggested, calling fold whilst
constructing parse trees shouldn't be necessary (as shown by the
shining examples of g77 and GNAT).
I don't follow. GNAT certainly calls fold for every expression it
makes.
Thanks for you help. I will look at some of the changes you suggested.
Gyle
-Original Message-
From: James E Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:00 PM
To: Gyle Yearsley
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: Global Reload Problem
On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 10:22
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:30:38PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | It might make the most sense to go the auto-generation route, and then
>
> ChangeLogs entries, when properly done (by people like RTH or Roger
> Sayle), carry highly valuable
"aram bharathi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i like to add a new instruction based on thumb ISA. i have added the
> instruction in both as and gcc. both of them are working correctly. but when
> i call ld it shows an error like
>
> /home/.../arm-elf-ld : /home/../arm-elf/lib/libc.a(printf.o)
51 matches
Mail list logo
