Hello,
Here the asm of the previous example:
.globl _ZN5bench10LinkedList6insertEi
.type _ZN5bench10LinkedList6insertEi, @function
_ZN5bench10LinkedList6insertEi:
.LFB46:
.loc 1 24 0
.cfi_startproc
pushq %r12
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
pushq %rbp
Hello,
Some of our target processors support complete hardware misaligned
memory access. I implemented movmisalignm patterns, and found
TARGET_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT (TARGET_VECTORIZE_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT
On 4.6) hook is based on checking these patterns. Somehow this
hook doesn't seem
Hello!
I am discovering gcc and his plugin system. I have tried MELT. I would
like to say that the lispy syntax is not so difficult. It mights look
unattractive to have such number of parenthesis but we quikly get used
to the structure.
The harder for me is to have a good view of the GCC interna
Hi,
gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 24/01/2011 03:21:51 PM:
> Hello,
> Some of our target processors support complete hardware misaligned
> memory access. I implemented movmisalignm patterns, and found
> TARGET_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT
> (TARGET_VECTORIZE_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT
> On 4.6) h
On 1/24/2011 5:21 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
Hello,
Some of our target processors support complete hardware misaligned
memory access. I implemented movmisalignm patterns, and found
TARGET_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT (TARGET_VECTORIZE_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT
On 4.6) hook is based on checking thes
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 08:02:33PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > - Similarly to the work I did for s/TREE_CHAIN/DECL_CHAIN/, I'd like to
> > replace TREE_TYPE for things like {POINTER,FUNCTION,ARRAY}_TYPE, etc.
> > This work would be a good step towar
Do you have any opinion about adding a warning for:
int f(char c)
{
return 10 * (c == 13) ? 1 : 2;
}
The multiplication has no effect. The function returns either 1 or 2.
It would be interesting to know how a MELT script could look like for
such a case.
As far as I see the multiplication do
Daniel Marjamäki writes:
> Do you have any opinion about adding a warning for:
>
> int f(char c)
> {
> return 10 * (c == 13) ? 1 : 2;
> }
>
> The multiplication has no effect. The function returns either 1 or 2.
>
> It would be interesting to know how a MELT script could look like for
> such
2011/1/24 Ian Lance Taylor :
> The problem with warnings for this kind of code in C/C++ is that it
> often arises in macro expansions.
I see... so it won't be included in gcc. :-(
It was my goal to get it into GCC. But I still think it's an
interesting idea that I'll look into.
Regards,
Daniel
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jie Zhang wrote:
> > I agree. I think Joseph is the best candidate for the maintainer of the
> > option handling since he made the most changes of gcc/opts-common.c. He
> > is already the maintainer of the driver. If we unify thes
On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 12:26 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/22/2011 10:48 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > I've attached dirty patch. It has not very nice comments, tabs and spaces
> > yet.
>
> Steve perhaps should weigh in here...
I am not very familiar with AUTO_PIC and NO_PIC. It wo
On 01/24/2011 11:40 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 12:26 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 01/22/2011 10:48 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>>> I've attached dirty patch. It has not very nice comments, tabs and spaces
>>> yet.
>>
>> Steve perhaps should weigh in here...
>
> I a
Daniel Marjamäki writes:
> 2011/1/24 Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> The problem with warnings for this kind of code in C/C++ is that it
>> often arises in macro expansions.
>
> I see... so it won't be included in gcc. :-(
Actually, I think it could be included in gcc, provided you (or
somebody) first i
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> 2011-01-18 Ian Lance Taylor
>
> * plugin.cc (class Plugin_rescan): Define new class.
> (Plugin_manager::claim_file): Set any_claimed_.
> (Plugin_manager::save_archive): New function.
> (Plugin_manager::save_input_group): New function.
>
I've committed this patch to bump the gold version number to 1.11, to
both mainline and the binutils 2.21 branch.
This is so that gcc's LTO plugin can detect the changed behaviour
concerning static archives, so that the plugin knows that it need not
honor the -pass-through option. The -pass-throu
Hello,
I am creating a script for building GCC 4.5.2 for the AVR target:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~osc22/files/install_avr_tools.sh
I have some troubles when building GCC-4.5.2, see below, maybe you can
help me; thanks:
...
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/local
On 24 January 2011 22:49, Omar Choudary wrote:
>
> I am creating a script for building GCC 4.5.2 for the AVR target:
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~osc22/files/install_avr_tools.sh
>
> I have some troubles when building GCC-4.5.2, see below, maybe you can
> help me; thanks:
This question is off-topic
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:52, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> Comments? Concerns?
Only one: thanks! They all look very useful to me.
Diego.
18 matches
Mail list logo
