Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

2014-09-16 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > All the updates sound good. > >> Regtested on x86_64-linux, without the patch toplevel make -k check >> took 8hrs3minutes (don't have time data for that run), > > This confuses me, but, no m

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

2014-09-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > This confuses me, but, no matter. Isn’t 8hrs time data? :-) It is, but not time(1) data, just wall clock computed from subtracting mtimes of my make check output log and make -j48 bootstrap log. > >> patch toplevel make -j48 -k

Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

2014-09-16 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> > This confuses me, but, no matter. Isn’t 8hrs time data? :-) > > It is, but not time(1) data, just wall clock computed from subtracting > mtimes of my make check output lo

Re: Issue with sub-object __builtin_object_size

2014-09-16 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/15/2014 11:55 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-06/msg00116.html) > > > From the __builtin_object_size documentation, it's not immediately > > clear to me whether this is supposed to work or not: > > > >If the least significant > >b

Designated Initializers in C++

2014-09-16 Thread David Brown
After a recent discussion about designated initializers in C++, I noticed that they are accepted by modern gcc (when gcc extensions are enabled). On , the documentation specifically says "This extension is not implemented in GNU C++". That

Re: Designated Initializers in C++

2014-09-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:14:35PM +0200, David Brown wrote: > After a recent discussion about designated initializers in C++, I > noticed that they are accepted by modern gcc (when gcc extensions are > enabled). > > On , the > documentatio

Re: Designated Initializers in C++

2014-09-16 Thread David Brown
On 16/09/14 13:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:14:35PM +0200, David Brown wrote: >> After a recent discussion about designated initializers in C++, I >> noticed that they are accepted by modern gcc (when gcc extensions are >> enabled). >> >> On

Re: Issue with sub-object __builtin_object_size

2014-09-16 Thread Jason Merrill
On 09/16/2014 06:23 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: I guess I'm still a bit confused about the special handling of the array case. Even with the last bit set, array elements normally do not count as "subobjects", so __builtin_object_size still returns the size of the full array. I expect that's beca

Re: Issue with sub-object __builtin_object_size

2014-09-16 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/16/2014 06:23 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Now in this case, we cast a pointer to the array to a pointer to a base > > type of the array element type -- but the intent is for the pointer to still > > refer to the whole array. (Of course, this only works if the base ty

Re: [gomp4] openacc kernels directive support

2014-09-16 Thread Tom de Vries
On 09-09-14 12:56, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Tom de Vries wrote: On 18-08-14 14:16, Tom de Vries wrote: On 06-08-14 17:10, Tom de Vries wrote: We could insert a pass-group here that only deals with functions that have the kernels directive, and do the auto-par thing in a pass_

RE: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

2014-09-16 Thread VandeVondele Joost
>> > These numbers are useful to try and ensure the overhead (scaling factor) >> > is reasonable, thanks. >> >> A nice improvement indeed. The patched result is 15 times faster >> than the serial unpatched run. So there is room for improvement > > Note, the box used was oldish AMD 16-core, no ht

Re: [gomp4] openacc kernels directive support

2014-09-16 Thread Richard Biener
On September 16, 2014 5:34:15 PM CEST, Tom de Vries wrote: >On 09-09-14 12:56, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >>> On 18-08-14 14:16, Tom de Vries wrote: On 06-08-14 17:10, Tom de Vries wrote: > We could insert a pass-group here that only deals with fu

Re: Issue with sub-object __builtin_object_size

2014-09-16 Thread Jason Merrill
On 09/16/2014 08:27 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 09/16/2014 06:23 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: Note that with a somewhat equivalent C construct: struct pollfd { int fd; short int events; short int revents; }; struct Pollfd { struct pollfd x; }; struct Pollfd myfd[1