Re: Linemap and pph

2011-07-27 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Gabriel Charette a écrit: > From what I understand, the source_locations allocated for > everything in a given set of headers (from the LC_ENTER for the > header in the line_table up to, and including everything in between, > the corresponding LC_LEAVE) is dependent on only one thing; the > value

Question about SMS scheduling windows

2011-07-27 Thread Richard Sandiford
I've been looking at SMS, and have a question about get_sched_window. When there are previously-scheduled predessors, we use: if (e->data_type == MEM_DEP) end = MIN (end, SCHED_TIME (v_node) + ii - 1); to get an upper bound on the scheduling window that is permitted

Re: Question about SMS scheduling windows

2011-07-27 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Sandiford writes: > I've been looking at SMS, and have a question about get_sched_window. > When there are previously-scheduled predessors, we use: > > if (e->data_type == MEM_DEP) > end = MIN (end, SCHED_TIME (v_node) + ii - 1); > > to get an upper bound on the s

Re: Question about SMS scheduling windows

2011-07-27 Thread Revital1 Eres
Hello Richard, > I ask because in the final range: > > start = early_start; > end = MIN (end, early_start + ii); > /* Schedule the node close to it's predecessors. */ > step = 1; > > END is an exclusive bound. It seems like we might be double-counting here, > and effectiv

Re: Linemap and pph

2011-07-27 Thread Gabriel Charette
I think I wasn't clear in the way I expressed my assumptions in my last email: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > > Gabriel Charette a écrit: > > > From what I understand, the source_locations allocated for > > everything in a given set of headers (from the LC_ENTER for the

Re: Linemap and pph

2011-07-27 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Gabriel Charette a écrit: > Actually from my understanding, highest_location is not equal to the > last start_location, but to the last source_location returned by > either linemap_line_start or linemap_positition_for_column (which is > >>= to the start_location of the current line_map). Right,

Register pressure analysis

2011-07-27 Thread Sergey Ostanevich
Hello! Is there any scripts/tools that parse GCC dumps and report register pressure in the dump - either overall, or in different parts of the dump? regards, Sergos

Re: Linemap and pph

2011-07-27 Thread Gabriel Charette
>> >> Hence, given that they only depend on start_location, I just have to >> calculate an offset between the serialized start_location and the >> start_location as it would be (highest_location + 1) in the C file >> including the header, and offset all of the source_locations on each >> token comi

Re: Register pressure analysis

2011-07-27 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 07/27/2011 10:26 AM, Sergey Ostanevich wrote: Hello! Is there any scripts/tools that parse GCC dumps and report register pressure in the dump - either overall, or in different parts of the dump? -fdump-rtl-ira creates an info dump of IRA. There is info about maximal pressure for each regio

Re: Linemap and pph

2011-07-27 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Gabriel Charette a écrit: >>> >>> Hence, given that they only depend on start_location, I just have to >>> calculate an offset between the serialized start_location and the >>> start_location as it would be (highest_location + 1) in the C file >>> including the header, and offset all of the sourc

Re: Question about SMS scheduling windows

2011-07-27 Thread Ayal Zaks
(sorry for replicated submissions, had to convert to plain text) >2011/7/27 Revital1 Eres > >Hello Richard, > > >> I ask because in the final range: >> >> start = early_start; >> end = MIN (end, early_start + ii); >> /* Schedule the node close to it's predecessors. */ >>

RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options

2011-07-27 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Igor Zamyatin writes: > >> As you may see pta_flags enum in i386.c is almost full. So there is a >> risk of overflow in quite near future. Comment in source code advises >> "widen struct pta flags" which is now defined as unsigned. But it

Re: RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options

2011-07-27 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> As you may see pta_flags enum in i386.c is almost full. So there is a >>> risk of overflow in quite near future. Comment in source code advises >>> "widen struct pta flags" which is now defined as unsigned. But it >>> looks not optimal. >>> >>>

Re: RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options

2011-07-27 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > As you may see pta_flags enum in i386.c is almost full. So there is a risk of overflow in quite near future. Comment in source code advises "widen struct pta flags" which is now

Re: Romain Geissler copyright assignment

2011-07-27 Thread Romain Geissler
Le 26 juil. 2011 à 16:45, Yvan ROUX a écrit : > Hi, > > Romain is doing an internship at STMicroelectronics on GCC plugins, and > as his mentor, I confirm and/or inform you that he is covered by the > copyright assignement RT 211150 between ST and FSF. > > Regards. > > -- > Yvan ROUX > STMicro

[gnu.org #702521] Re: Romain Geissler copyright assignment

2011-07-27 Thread Donald R Robertson III via RT
> [romain.geiss...@gmail.com - Wed Jul 27 14:05:48 2011]: > > Le 26 juil. 2011 à 16:45, Yvan ROUX a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > Romain is doing an internship at STMicroelectronics on GCC plugins, and > > as his mentor, I confirm and/or inform you that he is covered by the > > copyright assignement RT

ANN: gcc-python-plugin 0.5

2011-07-27 Thread David Malcolm
gcc-python-plugin is a plugin for GCC 4.6 onwards which embeds the CPython interpreter within GCC, allowing you to write new compiler warnings in Python, generate code visualizations, etc. Tarball releases are available at: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/c/gcc-python-plugin/ Prebuilt-docum

Re: RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options

2011-07-27 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > ; Maximum number of mask bits in a variable. > MaxMaskBits > ix86_isa_flags = 64 > > It mark ix86_isa_flags as 64bit. Any comments? The patch won't work as is. set_option, for example, casts a pointer to (int *), and stores a mask that came from option->v

Re: RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options

2011-07-27 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> ; Maximum number of mask bits in a variable. >> MaxMaskBits >> ix86_isa_flags = 64 >> >> It mark ix86_isa_flags as 64bit.  Any comments? > > The patch won't work as is.  set_option, for example, cast

IRA vs CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS, + 4.7 IRA regressions?

2011-07-27 Thread Sandra Loosemore
Consider this bit of code: extern double a[20]; double test1 (int n) { double accum = 0.0; int i; for (i=0; imipsisa32r2-sde-elf-gcc -O3 -fno-inline -fno-unroll-loops -march=74kf1_1 -S abstest.c With a GCC 4.6 compiler, this produces: ... .L3: mtc1$3,$f2 ldc1$f0