On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
>
> is a LTO bug where stage 1 and stage 2 compilers generate
> different LTO IR. Is there a way to dump LTO IR to see the
> actual difference in LTO IR?
No. I've had multiple incarnations of l
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
>>
>> is a LTO bug where stage 1 and stage 2 compilers generate
>> different LTO IR. Is there a way to dump LTO IR to see the
>> actual
FX writes:
>> The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
>> the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB
>> -fPIC _won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
>> This means that the PIC library is being built with non-pic relocs.
>
> config
On 26 Jan 2015, at 14:13, Rainer Orth wrote:
> FX writes:
>
>>> The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
>>> the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB
>>> -fPIC _won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
>>> This means that the PIC
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
> >> Arrays and Vectors
> >> Designated Inits: Labeling elements of initializers.
> >
> > I think this one might better be placed in a section on initializers.
>
> Since the only place 'Designated Inits' can be used is on arrays, placing this
> in t
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
> > is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
> > to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
>
> You are probably right tha
On 2015-01-25 4:55 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Hello All:
Looks like Live range splitting and rematerialization are connected to each
other. If the boundary of Live range
Splitting is in the high frequency of the region then the move connected to
splitted live ranges are inside the
High fr
On 2015-01-18 12:37 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Register allocation with two phase approach does optimal coalescing after the
spilling. Sometime Live range splitting makes
the coalescing non optimal. The splitted Live range are connected by move
instruction. Thus the Live range splitting and
Hi all,
I am writing numerical code, so I am trying to make the use
of arrays in C (with gcc) suck a bit less. In general, the long term
goal would be to have either a compile-time warning or the possibility
to get a run-time error if one writes beyond the end of an array as
specified by its ty
On 01/23/15 14:46, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
SECONDARY_INPUT_RELOAD_CLASS is another missed opportunity. Just like
the legitimate address stuff, this has checks for the various VFP
classes, but reload detects the class in the same flawed way, so an
integer reload gives GENERAL_REGS even when the dest
> I am proposing this as a possible alternative or complement to publication
> on the Internet to take into account those without Internet access, though
> those *with* Internet access also get the benefit.
So you want to publish stuff on the Internet for people that don't have access
to the Intern
On 26 January 2015 at 19:15, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Since my patch to change this has been accepted, could you please
> update the FAQ again?
Done. Moreover, if you create a wiki account, I will grant you editing powers.
> Also, I think the change could be mentioned here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.o
Dear list,
Consider the following small program:
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
double a;
a = strtod(argv[0], NULL);
printf("%f\n", floor(a));
return(0);
}
When compiling this with a -march that supports the roundsd instruction,
the floor() ca
No, no, not on the Internet---I mean in a paper magazine, which Internet users
can also get.
I'd like the machine code discussion to end.
--
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 26, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López
wrote:
>> I am proposing this as a possible alternative or complement to pu
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Martin Uecker wrote:
> extern void bar2(int (*x)[5]);
> int c = 4;
> int y[c];
> bar2(&y); // not diagnosed (found by asan)
This is the undefined behavior "If the two array types are used in a
context which requires them to be compatible, it is unde
I would also like the discussion on the GCC mailing list to end. The discussion
on /source/ code, however, should remain alive and well.
Sorry for all the confusion.
And by "type-in programs", I don't mean example programs like "Hello world"
programs. I mean real programs with real purpose.
Pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
