Re: lto-plugin: mismatch between ld's architecture and GCC's configure --host

2013-10-15 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:15:41 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > I suppose nobody thought of this but I wouldn't call it a scenario that > is desired to support either ;) Why not support this scenario? Have you seen the patches I posted yesterday? There are no changes for builds when not using

[gomp4] Building binaries for offload.

2013-10-15 Thread Kirill Yukhin
Hello, Let me somewhat summarize current understanding of host binary linking as well as target binary building/linking. We put code which supposed to be offloaded to dedicated sections, with name starting with gnu.target_lto_ At link time (I mean, link time of host app): 1. Generate dedicated

Re: programming language that does not inhibit further optimization by gcc

2013-10-15 Thread Rob
GCC does value analysis similar to what you mentioned. You'll find it under the -fdump-tree-vrp options. To provide extra information you can add range checks which GCC will pick up on. If you know a value is small, use a small integer type and gcc will pick up the range of values which can be assi

Re: wide-int branch timings

2013-10-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > So, here is a comparison of the time required to do a make -j15 of a > --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=none --enable-languages=c,c++ style > compiler. The base compiler is a --enable-checking=none > --enable-languages=c,c++,lto style c

Re: wide-int branch timings

2013-10-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Mike Stump wrote: >> So, here is a comparison of the time required to do a make -j15 of a >> --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=none --enable-languages=c,c++ style >> compiler. The base compiler is a -

Re: wide-int branch timings

2013-10-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Mike Stump wrote: >>> So, here is a comparison of the time required to do a make -j15 of a >>> --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=none --enabl

Compilation flags in libgfortran

2013-10-15 Thread Igor Zamyatin
Hi All! Is there any particular reason that matmul* modules from libgfortran are compiled with -O2 -ftree-vectorize? I see some regressions on Atom processor after r202980 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-09/msg00846.html) Why not just use O3 for those modules? Thanks, Igor

Re: programming language that does not inhibit further optimization by gcc

2013-10-15 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Albert Abramson wrote: > > Is there a language out there (similar to Fortran or a dialect of C) > that doesn't inhibit the compiler from taking advantage of every > optimization possible? Sure: Fortran. > Is there some way to provide a C/C++ compiler > with extr

Re: function attributes

2013-10-15 Thread Nagaraju Mekala
Hi Ian, Thanks for the reply. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Nagaraju Mekala > wrote: >> >> I observed that in rs6000 port longcall is implemented by using >> CALL_LONG define. >> #define CALL_LONG 0x0008 /* always call indir

Re: function attributes

2013-10-15 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Nagaraju Mekala wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Thanks for the reply. > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Nagaraju Mekala >> wrote: >>> >>> I observed that in rs6000 port longcall is implemented by using >>>

Re: Compilation flags in libgfortran

2013-10-15 Thread Toon Moene
On 10/15/2013 03:58 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: Hi All! Is there any particular reason that matmul* modules from libgfortran are compiled with -O2 -ftree-vectorize? I see some regressions on Atom processor after r202980 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-09/msg00846.html) Why not just use O3 fo

Re: Compilation flags in libgfortran

2013-10-15 Thread Janne Blomqvist
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > Hi All! > > Is there any particular reason that matmul* modules from libgfortran > are compiled with -O2 -ftree-vectorize? Yes, testing showed that it improved performance compared to the default options. See the thread starting at http://g

Re: Cilk Library

2013-10-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/09/13 12:32, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Dear Jeff and the rest of Steering committee members, Thank you very much for approving the license terms of the Cilk Library. I couldn't attach the zipped copy of the patch due to its size, so here is a link to the Cilk library patch that can be a

Re: wide-int branch timings

2013-10-15 Thread Mike Stump
On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > That said, how do cc1 binary sizes compare branch vs. trunk at > the last merge point? $ size /tmp/gcc-*/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/cc1plus textdata bss dec hex filename 14224227 33960 1061304 153194

Re: programming language that does not inhibit further optimization by gcc

2013-10-15 Thread gwenael chailleu
Here is the way I understood the goal of your long quest (I may be completely mistaken since I do not quite get what part of the job you want to leave to the language and what part to its compiler) "Is there a language that allow the developer to add information about the way a particular program