On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-06-22 06:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Do I understand correctly that inlining the builtin at expansion time is not
>> good because the implementation detail may depend on how libitm was
>> configured?
>
> More or less, yes.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 2012-06-22 06:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> Do I understand correctly that inlining the builtin at expansion time is
> >> not
> >> good because the implementation detail may depend on how libitm was
> >> configured?
> >
> > Mor
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> > On 2012-06-22 06:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> Do I understand correctly that inlining the builtin at expansion time is
>> >> not
>> >> good because the implementation detai
>
> I'm not sure TM people care about double streaming cost ;) As far as I can
> see TM people want the non-lowered form go through at least loop
> optimizations,
> so I don't see how even a proper IPA pass would help here. As of
> cherry-picking
:) Yep, this is kind of similar to what we may
Not sure if this is desired since 11.3.0 is already on the site but:
13:03@legolas:.+gcc4.7.0/objdir$ ../srcdir/config.guess
x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
13:07@legolas:.+4.7.0/local/bin$ ./gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/Users/jreese/Documents/school/edinburgh/pr
Le 26/06/2012 00:16, Michael Hope a écrit :
On 26 June 2012 00:48, Nathanaël Prémillieu wrote:
Hi all,
I am using the gcc ARM cross-compiler (gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro
4.6.3-1ubuntu5)). Compiling the test.c code (in attachement) with:
'arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -S test.c'
I obtain the t
The release of GNU MPFR 3.1.1 ("canard à l'orange" patch level 1)
is imminent. Please help to make this release as good as possible
by downloading and testing this release candidate:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.1/mpfr-3.1.1-rc1.tar.xz
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.1/mpfr-3.1.1-rc1.tar.bz2
http://w
Nathanaël Prémillieu writes:
> I do not ask for help, I just want to highlight what seems to me a
> strange behavior.
The mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for discussion of the development of
GCC itself. Discussion of GCC behaviour, including questions about
optimizations and possible bugs, is b
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Mark Butler wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 11:31:11 AM UTC-6, H.J. wrote:
>>
>> Support for the x32 psABI:
>>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>>
>> is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
>> instruction set with size of lon
On 06/26/2012 12:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> May I ask why the decision was made to use ILP32 instead of L64P32? The
>> latter would seem to avoid lots of porting problems in particular. And if
>> porting difficulties are the major complained about x32, is it really too
>> late to switch? Thank
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Mark Butler wrote:
>
>> x32 is designed to replace ia32 where long is 32-bit, not x86-64.
>>
> I understand, but wouldn't L64P32 be much better in the long run? In terms
> of compatibility with LP64, and an LP64 kernel in particular? The structure
> layouts of any
11 matches
Mail list logo
