On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:45:52PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Joe Buck wrote:
>>> I think that this should be the standard: a warning belongs in -Wall if
>>> it tends to expose bugs. If it doesn't, then it's just somebody's idea
>>> of prope
Till Straumann wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> That may be too old. Gcc 4.3.4 revision 148680
>>> generates:
>>>
>>> .L5:
>>> leaq(%rsi,%rdx), %rax
>>> movzbl(%rax), %eax
>>> movb%al, (%rdi,%rdx)
>>> addq$1, %rdx
>>> cmpq$32, %rdx
>>>
Hello Bingfeng,
> I found a true register dependency is always accompanied with a
cross-iteration
> anti dependency.
When -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves flag is set some anti-deps edges are not
created.
Please see add_cross_iteration_register_deps () function in ddg.c.
HTH,
Revital
This should g
Thanks. I didn't notice the option. Which approach is generally better
according to your experience? Producing regmoves or more depedencies?
> -Original Message-
> From: Revital1 Eres [mailto:e...@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: 23 June 2009 14:40
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Ayal Zaks; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Hello,
>
> Thanks. I didn't notice the option. Which approach is generally better
> according to your experience? Producing regmoves or more depedencies?
I think it depends on the target. Having reg-moves could increase
register pressure so using it on targets with small set of registers
could be
Hello
The -funswitch-loops Option seem work on gcc 4.3.0 and above not good for
speed.Test on m68k gcc.
It generate much larger code(wma123) and code is slower in many case (try
out ffmpeg H264 decode)i get report from a Athlon 2600+ with single channel
ram
running amiga 68k emulator.
But on my
[ redirected away from the -patches list because I want to ask a more general
theoretical question about compiler development ]
Richard Guenther wrote:
> During points-to pointer equivalence sets are computed by adding
> special RESTRICT heap-variables to points-to sets of targets of
> pointer co
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Dave
Korn wrote:
> [ redirected away from the -patches list because I want to ask a more general
> theoretical question about compiler development ]
>
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> During points-to pointer equivalence sets are computed by adding
>> special RESTRICT
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
> I'd guess there has to be some way in formal logic or propositional calculus
> by which we could take descriptions such as Richard's above, and the
> description of restrict semantics in the standard, and reduce them each to a
> pile of propositions that w
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > ..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
> > or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
> > unless you care about C++ style.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:35:48AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote
The following emails have been transfered between Soufiane and I.
Paolo Bonzini asked that I cc the
emails to the list.
=
Hi Soufiane,
I am working on OpenCL for google summer of code. I just emailled my
mentor asking about what the rules of collaborat
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > ..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
>> > or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
>> > unless you care about C++ style.
>
> On Tu
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > But if the initialization is skipped and the variable is then used,
> > won't we get an uninitialized-variable warning?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:32:51AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Did we get any in the cases Ian reported?
Note the sec
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
unless you care about C++ style.
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> I don't think this warning can report anything that -Wuninitialized
> cannot report, so it should go in -Wc++-compat only.
For the record, it can, as in when compiling this case without
optimization. This is not a strong example by any means.
extern void f2 (int *);
int
At pt.c:2462
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c?revision=148666&view=markup
there's:
switch (TREE_CODE (t))
{
case TEMPLATE_PARM_INDEX:
if (TEMPLATE_PARM_PARAMETER_PACK (t))
parameter_pack_p = true;
break;
In gdb, macro exp shows:
(gdb) macro exp TEMPLA
> [spoon.reloa...@gmail.com - Sun Jun 21 16:20:11 2009]:
>
> In the page of the libstdc++ manual about the API documentation:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/api.html
> the link to "the latest collection" goes to a "404 Not Found"
Hi.
I'm forwarding you this email that was assigned to
2009/6/23 Rob Myers via RT:
>>
>> In the page of the libstdc++ manual about the API documentation:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/api.html
>> the link to "the latest collection" goes to a "404 Not Found"
>
> Hi.
>
> I'm forwarding you this email that was assigned to gnu webmasters for
>
Larry Evans writes:
> At pt.c:2462
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c?revision=148666&view=markup
>
> there's:
>
> switch (TREE_CODE (t))
> {
> case TEMPLATE_PARM_INDEX:
> if (TEMPLATE_PARM_PARAMETER_PACK (t))
> parameter_pack_p = true;
> break;
>
> In
Hi,
I have a question about ifcvt.c:dead_or_predicable. This function is
pretty complicated and it's not really clear to me what it is doing.
But I'll have to understand what is going on because there is a bug in
this function that I would like to fix (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR40525).
The code I
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20090623 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20090623/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> The comment doesn't explain *why* we don't want delete_insn to be
> called, or why we want to do our own change group management.
dead_or_predicable is called from find_if_case_[12] which is called from
find_if_header which is called from if_convert within a FOR_EACH_BB
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I agree with you that people *should* assemble .s files with "gcc".
> But, in practice, many of them assemble them with "as" -- just as many
> people link with "ld". (We still install these tools in $bindir, not in
> $libexecdir, which is what we should do if we really don'
Hi, folks,
I'm having trouble seeing how layout is specified at the GENERIC level
for RECORD_TYPEs. The docs and comments in tree.def say that you cannot
rely on the order of fields of the type. In stor-layout.c,
layout_types() seems to do the obvious thing, taking the fields in
order, but the d
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> Hi, folks,
>
> I'm having trouble seeing how layout is specified at the GENERIC level
> for RECORD_TYPEs. The docs and comments in tree.def say that you cannot
> rely on the order of fields of the type. In stor-layout.c,
> layout_types() seems
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:52 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> > Hi, folks,
> >
> > I'm having trouble seeing how layout is specified at the GENERIC level
> > for RECORD_TYPEs. The docs and comments in tree.def say that you cannot
> > rely on the or
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Dave
Korn wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> The comment doesn't explain *why* we don't want delete_insn to be
>> called, or why we want to do our own change group management.
>
> dead_or_predicable is called from find_if_case_[12] which is called from
> find_if_
27 matches
Mail list logo
