On 8/10/07 9:49 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Zadeck has the parloop branch patches [ ... ]
Sorry, I meant Zdenek.
Ollie Wild wrote:
> Offhand, I don't remember what happened with the various other cases,
> but my testing at the time wasn't particularly thorough. The feedback
> I've gotten so far seems overwhelmingly negative, so I think the next
> step is to revisit the lowering approach, exercise the hell o
Alex Gonzalez writes:
> Hi, trying to come up with a testcase we figured out what the problem could
> be.
>
> When the optimizer is on and memcpy sees that it is copying a
> struct with double words in it, it will assume that the struct
> starts on an 8 byte boundary and use double word loa
Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi,
my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm? The Thomson
Algorithm creates an epsilon-NFA which needs quite a lot of memory. The
element construction creates an NFA directly and therefor has fewer states.
Well, this is only interesting in the scanner
Hi,
I wanted update my GCC compiler to 4.2.1 to install an updated version of C
libraries (glibc) and it is giving me errors while it is making the build. I
type ./configure which works fine but when I type "make" it runs fine until it
starts to give errors which are as follows:
/tmp/ccacyMlE.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I wanted update my GCC compiler to 4.2.1 to install an updated version of C libraries
(glibc) and it is giving me errors while it is making the build. I type ./configure which
works fine but when I type "make" it runs fine until it starts to give errors
which are
> "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> Just to be clear, we *already* have the class hierarchies in the
Dan> middle end.
Dan> They have been there for a few years now :)
Good point, thanks.
I don't think that is enough though, because I don't think the BINFO
slots mean th
On 8/9/07 6:19 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> re. timing for Stage 3?
Zadeck has the parloop branch patches, which I've been reviewing. I am
not sure how many other
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Tom Tromey wrote:
Michael> Yes, devirtualization. But I wonder if you really need class
Michael> hierarchies for this (actually I'm fairly sure you don't).
However, I'm not sure I agree with the above assertion. Specifically,
for Java I think it is sometimes possible
On 10 August 2007 12:49, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 01 June 2007 11:27, Ronny Peine wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm?
> To me, very fast (millions of lines a second) lexical analyzers are
> trivial to write by hand,
I think you need one to lex
I'm looking into a few cases where we're still getting the base/index
operand ordering wrong on PowerPC for an indexed load/store instruction,
even after the PTR_PLUS merge and fix for PR28690. One of the cases I
observed was caused by reload picking r0 to use for the base reg opnd as a
result of
Hi, trying to come up with a testcase we figured out what the problem could be.
When the optimizer is on and memcpy sees that it is copying a struct
with double words in it, it will assume that the struct starts on an 8
byte boundary and use double word loads and stores. This is a safe
assumption,
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070810 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070810/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Pat Haugen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm looking into a few cases where we're still getting the base/index
> operand ordering wrong on PowerPC for an indexed load/store instruction,
> even after the PTR_PLUS merge and fix for PR28690. One of the cases I
> observed was caused by reload picking
During development of the patch I just posted for double-word clz, I
went through all the back ends and audited their use of the bit-scan
named patterns and RTL. It appears to me that our current handling of
C[LT]Z_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is much more complicated than it needs to
be, and also that
15 matches
Mail list logo
