On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI has always passed arguments in registers. There is no
option to
On 05/11/2012 11:33, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars
wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI has always passed argu
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
> posted before
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:41:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> > on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> > like to see in GCC 4.8, please p
I sent this to the wrong list originally, apologies to those who get it
twice.
There is a request to be able to turn off interpretation of several
suffixes for gcc extension numeric literals to make way for C++-1Y or
various std libraries to claim several suffixes currently used for gnu
exten
I think this thread belongs on the gcc-help list, not here.
On 11/05/2012 02:09 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I sent this to the wrong list originally, apologies to those who get
it twice.
Actually, you originally sent it to the *right* list.
Paolo.
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:32:48PM -0800, Handong Ye wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
> >> Hi, all
> >>
...
> >>
> >> But when I do the test for a case with a little change, it is failed to
> >> g
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
there is code from the rtl level that was written twice, once for the
case when the size of the
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:53 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:41:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > I'd like to post later today (hopefully this morning) a very minimal
> > configure patch that adds the -mcpu=power8 and -mtune=power8 compiler
> > options to gcc. Currently,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:00AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Well we also patch config.in and configure.ac/configure. If those are
> acceptable to be patched later too, then great. If not, the patch
That is the same thing as config.gcc bits.
> isn't really very large. We did do this for po
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler is issuing
two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same register. It ends up
looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 <- r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 <- 0x10
This cannot happen, but I am unsure about wh
Quoting Paulo Matos :
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler
is issuing two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same
register. It ends up looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 <- r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 <- 0x10
This cannot ha
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:13 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> > on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> > like to see i
On 11/05/2012 03:51 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler is
> issuing two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same register. It
> ends up looking like this:
> Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 <- r2 and 0xf8
> Cond_exec p0 != 0:
Jakub and Richi,
At this point I have decided to that i am not going to get the rest of
the wide-int patches into a stable enough form for this round. The
combination of still living without power at my house and some issues
that i hit with the front ends has made it impossible to get this
fi
> -Original Message-
> From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.renne...@embecosm.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2012 16:32
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
> > This cannot happen, but I am unsure about which hook can be used to
> > te
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
> Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an
> output depen
On 11/05/2012 06:11 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
>> Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>>
>> Depends on why it schedules them i
I am getting a bunch of failed GCC tests with precompiled headers and was
wondering if anyone can help me figure out where to look for the problem.
If I run a test by hand by creating common-1.h.gch from common-1.h, then
remove common-1.h and compile common-1.c (which includes common-1.h), it
fai
i have been trying to change the representation of INT_CSTs so that they
do not carry around the limitation that they can only represent numbers
as large as 2 host_wide_ints (HWI). I have chosen a variable length
implementation that uses an array of HWIs that is just large enough to
hold the s
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
> legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess the first question is fairly
obvious so you are
On 11/05/2012 01:08 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess th
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:32:48PM -0800, Handong Ye wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
>> >> Hi, all
>> >>
>
> ...
>
>> >>
>> >> But when I
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
> behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
> "incorrectly" or "I have fixed problems that we have just decided to live
> with".
As far as I know, the TREE
On 11/05/2012 03:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
"incorrectly" or "I have fixed problems that we have just decided
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
> reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
> single digits!
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01103.html)
I suppose
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>> Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
>> reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
>> single digits!
>
> (see ht
On 2012-11-05 16:17 , Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
> deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Typically a major version bump is reserved for eit
I'd like to get a small patch to tree reassociation (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01761.html ) in.
Thanks,
Easwaran
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th.
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 15:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:00AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Well we also patch config.in and configure.ac/configure. If those are
> > acceptable to be patched later too, then great. If not, the patch
>
> That is the same thing as c
On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Typicall
33 matches
Mail list logo
