Hello,
While browsing through the mailing list archives a bit, I noticed
Alex's project to improve GCC's debug information. This seems like a
really interesting and worthwhile project. Alex, maybe you could add a
Wiki page about this project, in the style of
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SampleProjectT
On 11/5/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While browsing through the mailing list archives a bit, I noticed
> Alex's project to improve GCC's debug information. This seems like a
> really interesting and worthwhile project. Alex, maybe you could add a
> Wiki page about th
"Jun Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please check the following small program:
This is the wrong mailing list. Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
questions about using gcc. The mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for
developers of gcc itself. Please take any followups to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:32:07PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> Questions
> =
>
> * Does anyone object to turning on mapped locations by default?
>
> * Are there any unreviewed patches that I could help to review?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg00305.html
and the li
GNU Compiler Collection Documentation
Free Software Foundation
Dear Sir or Madam:
Today I found an error in versions 4.2.1 and 4.3.0 of Using the GNU
Compiler Collection. Both versions have the same error.
The error is at the very end of section 3.2 and is on page 21 of
version
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg00842.html
I had already approved this.
Paolo
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg00842.html
>
> I had already approved this.
>
I missed it. I checked it in.
Thanks.
H.J.
+++ Eric Botcazou [02/11/07 09:56 +0100]:
> > Questions:
> > * shorten_branches() computes sizes of instructions so I know what the
> > distance is between a jump instr and its target label. But how do I know
> > what is the maximum distance each kind of branch can safely take?
> > bb-reorde
On 05 November 2007 16:29, Craig Dedo wrote:
> Today I found an error in versions 4.2.1 and 4.3.0 of Using the GNU
> Compiler Collection. Both versions have the same error.
>
> The error is at the very end of section 3.2 and is on page 21 of
> version 4.2.1 and page 25 of version 4
Hi I have a question regarding gcc or g++ -fdump-tree-all-raw-details (.tu
file). I want to dump the entire C (not C++) AST tree the only way to do
this, without losing any information, is if I use g++ and
-fdump-tree-all-raw-details and i have some kind of error in the file. Can
I in some way cha
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2007, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * Are there any unreviewed patches that I could help to review?
>
> Also, how about the patch for PR27898?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-07/msg00187.html
Joseph, would you please review this pat
skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can someone tell me what optimisations might be enabled/disabled
> by strict aliasing rules?
With no aliasing information at all, the compiler can not reorder load
and store instructions, because they might refer to the same memory
locations. The compiler do
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:56 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Can someone tell me what optimisations might be enabled/disabled
> > by strict aliasing rules?
> Strict aliasing only refers to loads and stores using pointers.
Ah, I see. So turning it off
skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:56 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Can someone tell me what optimisations might be enabled/disabled
> > > by strict aliasing rules?
>
> > Strict aliasing only refers to loads and store
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:15:55AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ah, I see. So turning [strict aliasing] off isn't really all that bad
> > for optimisation.
>
> It depends on the processor. For an in-order processor with a deep
> pipeline (e.g., Itanium,
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:15 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:56 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Can someone tell me what optimisations might be enabled/disabled
> > > > by st
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 2007, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> * Are there any unreviewed patches that I could help to review?
> >
> > Also, how about the patch for PR27898?
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:20 -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:15:55AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Ah, I see. So turning [strict aliasing] off isn't really all that bad
> > > for optimisation.
> >
> > It depends on the processor.
On Sunday 04 November 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> > To fix this will require a round of copy propagation, most likely in
> > concert with some induction variable detection, since the most
> > profitable place for this will be in loops.
>
> For code size, it will be profitab
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Strict aliasing only refers to loads and stores using pointers.
skaller writes:
> Ah, I see. So turning it off isn't really all that bad
> for optimisation.
One example of where it hurts on just about any platform is something
like this:
void allocate(int **p,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:44:44AM +1100, skaller wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:20 -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:15:55AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Ah, I see. So turning [strict aliasing] off isn't really all that
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20071105 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20071105/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
H.J. Lu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg00305.html
OK.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
> I am worried about some of the things going on in the
> var-tracking-assignments branch. The thing that worries me most, is
> the introduction of an insn that is not an instruction:
>
> /* An annotation for variable assignment tracking. */
> DEF_RTL_EXPR(DEBUG_INSN, "debug_insn", "iuuBieie", RT
Hi Paul,
Did you check the wrong ChangeLog entry in gcc/ChangeLog with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=129904
H.J.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:32:07PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> Questions
> =
>
> * Does anyone object to turning on mapped locations by default?
>
> * Are there any unreviewed patches that I could help to review?
>
Another one
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01865.htm
H.J. Lu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01865.html
>
> which involves reload.
I'm not going to try to wade into reload. Ulrich, Eric, Ian -- would
one of you please review this patch?
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg00608.html
>
> Without this patch, -g changes the generated code quite often.
This is OK, assuming no objections within 24 hours.
As previously discussed, maintaining identical output with and without
-g is a design goal for
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:30 -0500, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Strict aliasing only refers to loads and stores using pointers.
>
> skaller writes:
> > Ah, I see. So turning it off isn't really all that bad
> > for optimisation.
>
> One example of where it hurts on just abou
29 matches
Mail list logo
