On Sunday 27 March 2005 04:45, Canqun Yang wrote:
> Another question is why the new RTL loop-unroller does
> not support giv splitting.
Apparently because for most people it is not a problem that it does
not do it, and while you have indicated earlier that it may be useful
for you, you have neithe
%cat LAST_UPDATED
Sat Mar 26 21:31:28 EST 2005
Sun Mar 27 02:31:28 UTC 2005
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/opt/gcc-head//powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0/bin/
-c -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-variadic-macro
Geert Bosch wrote:
%cat LAST_UPDATED
Sat Mar 26 21:31:28 EST 2005
Sun Mar 27 02:31:28 UTC 2005
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/opt/gcc-head//powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0/bin/
-c -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I presume that "code" can/should be optimally generated once by initially
> optimally covering the rtl representing a basic block (with minimal cost
> in either storage, cycles or some hybrid of both); where there's then no
> need to ever subsequen
Dear GNU,
Hello? I'm Anderson Shin([EMAIL PROTECTED]), director of
IPEAN(ipean.com) company in South Korea.
To begin with, please let me introduce shortly about our company.
We are developping EDA(Electronic Design Automation) tools that is CAD
system for digital/analog IC/circuit designing.
O
I guess its due to the following patch (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-03/msg01320.html).
I get the following error when trying to build gcc on powerpc-apple-darwin:
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I../../../gcc/libiberty/../include -W
-Wall -Wtraditional -pedantic ../../../gcc/libiber
> From: Ian Lance Taylor
>> Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> (is this not feasible if the target is accurately described in rtl?)
>
> I don't know how to respond to this. I'm discussing a way to achieve
> an incremental improvement in gcc. You seem to be discussing a
> different compiler.
Mostafa Hagog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I guess its due to the following patch (
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-03/msg01320.html).
| I get the following error when trying to build gcc on powerpc-apple-darwin:
| gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I../../../gcc/libiberty/../include -W
| -
Hello,
> On Sunday 27 March 2005 03:53, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > The last ChangeLog of rtlopt-branch was written in
> > 2003. After more than one year, many impovements in
> > this branch haven't been put into the GCC HEAD. Why?
>
> Almost all of the rtlopt branch was merged. Prefetching is one
>
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20050327 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20050327/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 CVS branch
with the following options: -D2005-03-27 17:43 UTC
You'll
Hello,
> On Sunday 27 March 2005 04:45, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > Another question is why the new RTL loop-unroller does
> > not support giv splitting.
>
> Apparently because for most people it is not a problem that it does
> not do it, and while you have indicated earlier that it may be useful
> fo
If you run 'make check' after --enable-mapped-location (even
just --enable-languages=c) you'll find some apparant regressions.
They aren't real regressions - it's just now we now get column numbers
in some of the diagnostic messages, and this confuses dejagnu.
Now I'm willing to fix those tests by
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 08:55 AM, anderson shin wrote:
However we always respect an opinion of the GNU. So we will follow
your decision and we hope our suggestion will be accepted.
Mostly, this is off-topic for this list. gnu.misc.discuss is the
canonical place for such discussions. I'll
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
If you run 'make check' after --enable-mapped-location (even
just --enable-languages=c) you'll find some apparant regressions.
They aren't real regressions - it's just now we now get column numbers
in some of the diagnostic messages, and t
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
Now I'm willing to fix those tests by adding -fno-show-column where
necessary
Ick. I favor adding it unconditionally to compile lines over this.
See -fmessage-length code (gcc/testsuite/lib/g++.exp) for hints. And
even that, I'm not s
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 09:31 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Fixed with this
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02450.html
Please try again and let me know.
A quick check of build's libiberty, seems to build for me now on
darwin8.
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 09:31 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Fixed with this
| >
| >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02450.html
| >
| > Please try again and let me know.
|
| A quick check of build's libiberty, seems to build for me
On 27/03/2005, at 4:00 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
%cat LAST_UPDATED
Sat Mar 26 21:31:28 EST 2005
Sun Mar 27 02:31:28 UTC 2005
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/opt/gcc-head//powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0/bin/
-c -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
ÒýÑÔ Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> > On Sunday 27 March 2005 03:53, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > > The last ChangeLog of rtlopt-branch was written
in
> > > 2003. After more than one year, many impovements
in
> > > this branch haven't been put into the GCC HEAD.
Why?
> >
> > Almost a
ÒýÑÔ Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> > On Sunday 27 March 2005 04:45, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > > Another question is why the new RTL loop-
unroller does
> > > not support giv splitting.
> >
> > Apparently because for most people it is not a
problem that it does
> > not do it, and whi
Hi Diego,
> By merging, do you mean *replacing* CCP with VRP? Yes, it's
> doable. No, it's not a good idea.
Understood.
Also, if we are inserting ASSERT_EXPRs, it seems to be a good idea to
run copy-prop before VRP. Otherwise, we would end up with lots of
D.18001_101 = D.18001_198;
D.180
> Isn't that what newlib is for...?
"Should be" does not mean "is". I know libiberty has been used for
this purpose in the past (remember the demangler in libstdc++ times?)
so I wouldn't want to assume we aren't still doing it.
> I should be clear, though; I only want to make this assumption fo
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 08:08:43PM -0500, Kazu Hirata wrote:
> Also, if we are inserting ASSERT_EXPRs, it seems to be a good idea to
> run copy-prop before VRP. Otherwise, we would end up with lots of
>
There is a copy-propagation pass before VRP. Or do you mean
right before? Sure, the orderin
Hi Diego,
> There is a copy-propagation pass before VRP. Or do you mean
> right before? Sure, the ordering of these passes is in eternal
> flux anyway.
"Before", but doesn't have to be "right before". The current ordering
is reasonable.
> > Currently, we still have these even after copy prop
Hi Ian, (getting back to reality) upon reviewing things further, it appears
that if GCC could relax it's single-set restriction to enable a restricted
form of multi-set instructions to be included in optimizations; then ISA's
who's instructions either implicitly set or depend on global machine stat
i build a crosscompiler for gcc, abi=n32
gcc-4.1-20050327/configure -target=mips64el-linux
-prefix=/opt/gcc-4.1-20050327/ -enable-languages=c --disable-shared
make
it will error with config/mips/mips.c
26 matches
Mail list logo
