Richard Henderson wrote on 17/11/2009 03:39:42:
> Richard Henderson
> 17/11/2009 03:39
>
> To
>
> Ira Rosen/Haifa/i...@ibmil
>
> cc
>
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>
> Subject
>
> targetm.vectorize.builtin_vec_perm
>
> What is this hook supposed to do? There is no description of its
arguments.
>
> What i
> > I can imagine having some sort of target hook that computed a cost
> > metric for a given constant permutation pattern. For instance, I'd
> > imagine that the interleave patterns are half as expensive as a full
> > permute for altivec, due to not having to load a mask. This hook would
> > be
Hi,
I'm new to GCC and was wondering if anyone has done work on a back end for
small micros such as microchip PICs? It is something I'd like to work on
but would like to know if there are any reasons why GCC only appears to have
back ends for larger format CPUs.
Thanks
Adrian
...
>
> >
> > I'm contemplating adding a tree- and gimple-level VEC_PERMUTE_EXPR of
> > the form:
> >
> >VEC_PERMUTE_EXPR (vlow, vhigh, vperm)
> >
> > which would be exactly equal to
> >
> >(vec_select
> > (vec_concat vlow vhigh)
> > vperm)
> >
> > at the rtl level. I.e. vperm is
"Adrian Wadey" writes:
> I'm new to GCC and was wondering if anyone has done work on a back end for
> small micros such as microchip PICs? It is something I'd like to work on
> but would like to know if there are any reasons why GCC only appears to have
> back ends for larger format CPUs.
Peopl
As mentioned in a post of comp.std.c++:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yaqvnnq
there's a need for some way to get the nth element of a pack
expansion. For example, boost::mpl::arg:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_40_0/libs/mpl/doc/refmanual/arg.html
wouldn't need the preprocessor for its impl
Just one more issue to mention (particularly for those who have been writing
ICI plugins).
ICI sometime has been using environment variables inside GCC with its own
invocation flags
(-fici) and dynamic library loading.
Naturally, Joern will remove duplicate dynamic library handling and invocatio
Hi,
I'm trying to resolve one way or another this PR, which I have assigned
to myself a long time ago... The issue essentially is very simple. This
kind of code:
struct S { int s[3]; };
struct S s1 = { 1, 1, 1 };
triggers a warning with -Wall about missing braces around initializer,
whic
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Therefore, my idea to resolve 25137 and make progress in this area would
> be moving -Wmissing-braces from -Wall to -Wextra: the corresponding
> patch, as expected, is trivial, and it would be for me only matter to
> tweak the testsuites a bit (A refinement of that proposal
On 11/16/2009 06:37 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Variable permutations could be very useful for doing vector operations on
unaligned inputs. To some degrees shifts can be used, but if they only have
C semantics you'll get corner cases with word-sized shifts when the
input is actually aligned.
I'm
hello,
I downloaded "gcc-4.4.2.tar.gz" and it's first time I use GCC, I do not know
how to install it on windows vista.
I want to use C and C + +
cordialy
_
Tchattez en direct en en vidéo
2009/11/17 abdelali ghoulam:
>
> I downloaded "gcc-4.4.2.tar.gz" and it's first time I use GCC, I do not know
> how to install it on windows vista.
> I want to use C and C + +
This mailing list is for discussing development of gcc, not how to
install or use it, you should ask on the gcc-h...@gcc.
abdelali ghoulam wrote:
hello,
I downloaded "gcc-4.4.2.tar.gz" and it's first time I use GCC, I do not know
how to install it on windows vista.
I want to use C and C + +
cordialy
_
Tchattez
Paolo Carlini writes:
> I'm trying to resolve one way or another this PR, which I have assigned
> to myself a long time ago... The issue essentially is very simple. This
> kind of code:
>
> struct S { int s[3]; };
> struct S s1 = { 1, 1, 1 };
>
> triggers a warning with -Wall about missin
2009/11/17 Ian Lance Taylor:
>
> I don't really understand how this interacts with std::tr1:array,
> though.
For it to be a more convenient drop-in replacement for builtin arrays
you want to initialise tr1::array like so:
std::tr1::array a = { 0, 1, 2 };
rather than
std::tr1::array a = { { 0, 1
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> 2009/11/17 Ian Lance Taylor:
>>
>> I don't really understand how this interacts with std::tr1:array,
>> though.
>
> For it to be a more convenient drop-in replacement for builtin arrays
> you want to initialise tr1::array like so:
>
> std::tr1::array a = { 0, 1, 2 };
>
>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> OK, to me that seems like an excellent reason to implement a special
> case for the warning here. For example, perhaps if a struct has only
> one field, and that field is an aggregate, then we don't warn if there
> is only one set of braces.
>
Sure, we considered that,
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20091117 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20091117/
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
Paolo Carlini writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> OK, to me that seems like an excellent reason to implement a special
>> case for the warning here. For example, perhaps if a struct has only
>> one field, and that field is an aggregate, then we don't warn if there
>> is only one set of braces.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:07:28PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paolo Carlini writes:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> OK, to me that seems like an excellent reason to implement a special
> >> case for the warning here. For example, perhaps if a struct has only
> >> one field, and that fie
Joe Buck wrote:
> I think that the cleanest way is to suppress the warning for structs
> with one member
And recursively?
So that:
struct A { int i; };
struct B { struct A a };
struct C { struct B b };
struct C c = { 1 };
does not trigger the warning?
What if struct B is now:
struc
2009/11/18 Mark Mitchell:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
>> I think that the cleanest way is to suppress the warning for structs
>> with one member
>
> And recursively?
>
> So that:
>
> struct A { int i; };
> struct B { struct A a };
> struct C { struct B b };
> struct C c = { 1 };
>
> does not trigger th
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paolo Carlini writes:
>
>> I'm trying to resolve one way or another this PR, which I have assigned
>> to myself a long time ago... The issue essentially is very simple. This
>> kind of code:
>>
>> struct S { int s[3]; };
>> struct
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This still has exactly two initialisers for exactly two objects, so I
> think it's OK. I'm concerned about missing braces when the meaning of
> the code may not be what you expect.
I think you're right -- you want -Wmissing-field-initializers, not
-Wmissing-braces. -Wmi
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> This still has exactly two initialisers for exactly two objects, so I
>> think it's OK. I'm concerned about missing braces when the meaning of
>> the code may not be what you expect.
>
> I think you're right -- yo
25 matches
Mail list logo
