On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> As a followup to my update to the inline asm docs, I'm cleaning up the
> docs for 'Asm Labels.' The changes I want to make are pretty
> straight-forward (attached; comments welcome). But then I came across
> this line of code (f
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:59 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Cc: Jeff Law; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli
Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: RE: vectorization cost macro TARGET_V
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C
> -function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for the
> +variable, this feature allows you to define names for the
> linker that do not star
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Abe Skolnik wrote:
> [Alan wrote:]
>
>> Interesting, thanks. For what kind of architecture are these -
>
> You are welcome.
>
> You raised 2 or 3 good points, I think.
>
> First: the numbers are all from builds on and for the AMD64 ISA, AKA
> "x86_64". My apolog
[Richard wrote:]
Ah, so for a meaningful comparison -march=native should be used.
Otherwise we don't get much store if-conversion anyway.
Understood. I`ll adjust configuration files accordingly and redo the analyses.
Please look for an updated report from me later this week.
Regards,
Abe
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, FX wrote:
> > It's necessary to avoid the type-generic signbit expanding to call a library
> > function that may not exist, but as all currently supported floating-point
> > formats do have a sign bit specified in signbit_ro I believe the case
> > of failing to expand inline c
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:05 +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > The 'and' instruction is where the stack gets aligned and if I remove that
> > one instruction, everything works. I think I need to put out some new CFI
> > psuedo-ops to handle this but I am not sure what they should be. I am just
> > not
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> following post to the GCC list:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
>
> So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass
> the following opti
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> > following post to the GCC list:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
> >
> > So far, I've been
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
>> > following post to the GCC list:
>> >
>> > https://gcc.gn
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:38:22AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:05 +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> > > The 'and' instruction is where the stack gets aligned and if I remove that
> > > one instruction, everything works. I think I need to put out some new CFI
> > > psuedo-ops
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> > following post to the GCC list:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
> >
> > So far, I've been
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> > > following post to the GCC list:
> > >
> > > h
There isn't any description of using asm like this in the current Asm
Labels docs.
And there shouldn't be. It's a hack.
Ok, good. After experimenting with this, I wasn't looking forward to
trying to describe what did and didn't work.
dw
Thank you for the review and comments.
On 8/17/2015 3:41 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C
-function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for the
> So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass
> the following options to ld instead of -static -pie:
>
> -static -shared -Bsymbolic
>
> This partly works, but since ld does not know it's producing a main
> executable, it misses important details, including the abilit
16 matches
Mail list logo
