On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I'm interested in your thoughts on fixing c++/65945 in 5.2.
>
> It's trivial to fix the alignment of nullptr_t, but I was concerned about ABI
> impact. On further research it seems that it won't cause any trouble with
> argument alignment, since that d
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:53:31PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I have a series of patches to convert all non-optab instructions to
> the target-insns.def interface. config-list.mk showed up one problem
> though. The pa indirect_jump pattern is:
>
> ;;; Hope this is only within a function..
Had anyone a chance to compare FP implementation in compiler_rt? I
still wonder why the sizes differ so much, Incomplete implementation
in compiler_rt?
compiler_rt claims it is IEEE-compliant.
2015-06-30 23:10 GMT+03:00 Joseph Myers :
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > soft-fp is expecte
On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before ca
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
>>> We currently have a nasty optimization
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >>(I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do this for the syscall bodies
> >>themselves. I want to do it for the entry and exit helpers, so we'd
> >>still lose the five cycles in the full fast-path case, but we'd do
> >>better in
The only idea on size difference I have is:
headers text in many of FP-emulation files from compiler_rt contains lines like:
// This file implements quad-precision soft-float addition ***with the
IEEE-754 default rounding*** (to nearest, ties to even).
2015-07-01 16:59 GMT+03:00 Zinovy Nis :
>
On 01/07/15 16:34, Zinovy Nis wrote:
> The only idea on size difference I have is:
>
> headers text in many of FP-emulation files from compiler_rt contains lines
> like:
>
> // This file implements quad-precision soft-float addition ***with the
> IEEE-754 default rounding*** (to nearest, ties to
Sent from my iPhone
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Zinovy Nis wrote:
> Had anyone a chance to compare FP implementation in compiler_rt? I
> still wonder why the sizes differ so much, Incomplete implementation
> in compiler_rt?
> compiler_rt claims it is IEEE-compliant.
If you examine the implementation approaches, you will see
On 07/01/2015 11:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
(I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do this for the syscall bodies
themselves. I want to do it for the entry and exit helpers, so we'd
still lose the five cycles in the full fast
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
> a variable or passing as an argument) and loosing a track of it and than
> call it. How c
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
> a variable or passing as an argument) and loosing a track of it and than
> call it
On 07/01/2015 11:27 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We curr
On 07/01/2015 01:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
a variable or passing as an argument)
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
>> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
>> a variable or passing
Dear all,
[Please feel free to skip to the second instance of "end of introductions"
and read the introduction sections later or never.]
Hi! My name is Abe. Although I`m from New York City, I`ve been living in
Texas for about 5 years now,
due to having been "sucked in" to Texas by Texas A
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150701 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150701/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
To avoid indirect branch to locally defined functions, I am proposing to
add a new relocation, R_X86_64_INDBR_GOTPCREL, to x86-64 psABI:
1. When branching to an external function, foo, toolchain generates
call/jmp *foo@GOTPCREL(%rip)
with R_X86_64_INDBR_GOTPCREL relocation, instead o
In this bit of code in explow.c:
/* By passing constant addresses through registers
we get a chance to cse them. */
if (! cse_not_expected && CONSTANT_P (x) && CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (x))
x = force_reg (address_mode, x);
On the rl78 it results in code that's a bit too complex for later
On 07/01/2015 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
>> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
>> a variable or passing as an argu
21 matches
Mail list logo
