On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard Guenther:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I get strange warnings when I do arithmetic involving TYPE_MAX_VALUE
>>> (size_type_node), in particular this code:
>>>
>>> /* Multiplies MUL1 with MUL2, a
Hi,
SInce -O3 turns on vectorizer, should it also turn on
-funroll-loops?
--
H.J.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SInce -O3 turns on vectorizer, should it also turn on
> -funroll-loops?
We need to split the tree and RTL effects of -funroll-loops
(and -fpeel-loops). -funroll-loops can at the moment lead
to unneccessary code bloat. But yes, something
Hello,
I currently have a plugin for gcc 4.5 that works great. However, the
need has arisen to have the same plugin run on gcc 3.4.5. Knowing
that the plugin api wasn't added until 4.5 I was wondering if anyone
could tell me how much pain i would be in for if I attempt to backport
the plugin api
Can somebody please explain the behavior of the following program
to me?
cat >test.c <
#include
#include
int main(void){
register __m128 var;
fprintf(stdout,"pre %X\n",var);
var = _mm_setzero_ps();
fprintf(stdout,"post %X\n",var);
fprintf(stdout,"zerof %X\n",0.0f);
exit(EXIT_SU
On 1/21/2011 4:12 PM, Kyle Girard wrote:
Hello,
I currently have a plugin for gcc 4.5 that works great. However, the
need has arisen to have the same plugin run on gcc 3.4.5. Knowing
that the plugin api wasn't added until 4.5 I was wondering if anyone
could tell me how much pain i would be in f
On 1/21/2011 10:43 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
SInce -O3 turns on vectorizer, should it also turn on
-funroll-loops?
Only if a conservative default value for max-unroll-times is set 2<=
value <= 4
--
Tim Prince
"David Mathog" writes:
> Can somebody please explain the behavior of the following program
> to me?
This question is not appropriate for the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list,
which is for the development of gcc itself. It would be appropriate on
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. Please take any followups to g
I've merged trunk rev 169107 into the pph branch. No new failures.
Lawrence, you will probably find little/no merge conflicts with your
timevar patch.
Diego.