Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
>
> For most processors it's not important to get all costs exactly correct.
> The compiler uses the costs in a relatively brute force manner. If
> there is only one way to do some operation, then its cost is irrelevant.
> Co
Hello,
Our unsigned multiplication uses 2 words, while our signed
multiplication uses 1. So, we are trying to use smult for an unsigned
multiplication whenever the following multiplication disregard the MSW
of the result.
The rules currently take the shape:
,
| (define_expand "umulqihi3"
|
On 09/24/2010 10:10 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
The rules currently take the shape:
,
| (define_expand "umulqihi3"
`
These rules were created in gcc42 and the idea was that we can use smult
instead of umult whenever RAH (MSW of the result) is not used
afterwards. The 2nd argument of make_m
On 09/23/2010 08:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Diego Novillo writes:
I'd suggest sending one initial patch fixing indentation issues and
then sending your functional changes on top of the first patch.
Yes.
Basile, I'm sorry you have to struggle with some poor existing
indentation in gengty
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:51:43AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 08:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >Diego Novillo writes:
> >
> >>I'd suggest sending one initial patch fixing indentation issues and
> >>then sending your functional changes on top of the first patch.
> >
> >Yes.
I d
On 09/24/2010 11:29 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
I don't understand what concrete steps are you suggesting. As
explained above, I am using M-x indent-region but it does indent
gengtype code because gengtype is mis-indented from the beginning.
Maybe my patches will never go into trunk because
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 09/24/2010 10:10 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>
> You can use mul3 for non-widening multiplication, which would
> always use smult, and {u,}mul3 for widening
> multiplication which has to use smult or umult for correctness.
> That's how i386 chooses between multi-operand i
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> No, I am not actually. I initially thought it wouldn't work.
> However, it makes sense. I just implemented it and it doesn work.
>
I meant, it _does_ work! :)
--
PMatos
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 09/23/2010 08:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Diego Novillo writes:
>>
>>> I'd suggest sending one initial patch fixing indentation issues and
>>> then sending your functional changes on top of the first patch.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Basile, I'm sorry you have to struggle
The first release candidate for GCC 4.4.5 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.5-RC-20100924
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 164596.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test
Hi,
I'm having a look into getting DWARF2 exceptions (ZCX) working on ARM. I
just wondered if anyone has done this yet or is working on it?
My target will be N900 Maemo, I'll have to use an older GCC due to the
fact that the ABI changed at v4.4
(http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html bit-fields)
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html bit-fields).
That ABI change only structs which are marked as being packed. If you
have some of those in your code, you need to understand that before
4.4, it was incorrectly working.
-- Pinski
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 15:39 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html bit-fields).
>
>
> That ABI change only structs which are marked as being packed. If you
> have some of those in your code, you need to understand that before
> 4.4, it was incorrectly working.
So, with the new bugzilla, how does one confirm a bug
is a bug? If I click on the button next to the
"status:" field, the selections listed are unconfirmed,
new, assigned, suspended, waiting, and resolved. Where's
the confirm selection?
--
Steve
14 matches
Mail list logo
