Hello.
Looking at machine description of functions like ceil/floor and I
think specifically:
(define_expand "2"
Roundeven should be described as define_expand (or within this
alongside ceil and floor?) with expand functions to emit instructions
in i386-builtins.c?
Referring to ,
operands of these
Hi!
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:26:58 -0400, Jason Duerstock
wrote:
> I volunteer to be maintainer for ia64.
Great!
I see you've already left behind some traces in GCC, and generally the
GNU toolchain, but just to be sure: the procedure then roughly is for you
to display some level of commitment, f
Hi,
Currently, gcc (specifically libgomp) contains some amount of lock-free code.
Does gcc test for the correctness of the lock-free sections?
Or is it tested just as any other code?
Ray Kim
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 05:16:18PM +0900, 김규래 wrote:
> Currently, gcc (specifically libgomp) contains some amount of lock-free code.
> Does gcc test for the correctness of the lock-free sections?
No. Well, there is thread sanitizer, -fsanitize=thread, but it isn't able
to understand the futex etc
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 14:32, Jakub Jermář wrote:
>
> Hi Richard!
>
> On 6/13/19 1:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > ia64 has no maintainer anymore so the following deprecates it
> > with the goal of eliminating the port for GCC 11 if no maintainer
> > steps up.
> >
> > OK?
>
> The HelenOS micro
Sorry for the late reply. Your message never arrived in my mailbox.
I suspect that corporate email has swallowed it for some stupid
reason. I'm replying to a copy I found in the mailing list archives
at gcc dot gnu dot org. Hopefully I didn't screw up the editing.
From: Richard Biener
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:46 PM David Taylor wrote:
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Your message never arrived in my mailbox.
> I suspect that corporate email has swallowed it for some stupid
> reason. I'm replying to a copy I found in the mailing list archives
> at gcc dot gnu dot org. Hopefully
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 9:57 AM
> To: taylor, david
> Cc: GCC Development
> Subject: Re: gcc: -ftest-coverage and -auxbase
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:46 PM David Taylor wrote:
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:22:54 +0200
> >
> >
Hi Segher,
> If you want the const_vector for r97, you should look at the combination
> that tries *that* insn together with 10 and 12. Did it try that?
Why not?
It did not attempt to combine all three, I'm not sure why not, I would
have expected
it to, they are all in the same basic block.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Make sure you compile to a target that has the rounding instruction,
> i.e. by using an appropriate -march or -mavx) and also specify
> -ffast-math on the command line. I have not double checked, but I
> assume the latter is necessary (mainly) because i
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > existing ROUND_NO_EXC definition in GCC. A new definition will need
> > adding alongside ROUND_FLOOR, ROUND_CEIL and ROUND_TRUNC to correspond to
> > rounding to nearest with ties to even, evaluating to 0.)
>
> So (ROUND_ROUNDEVEN 0x0) be declared fo
On 6/14/19 6:26 PM, Jason Duerstock wrote:
> I volunteer to be maintainer for ia64.
So the first step would be to start your assignment paperwork with the
FSF. Without it we can't accept non-trivial contributions/fixes from you.
Contact ass...@gnu.org to get a past and future copyright assignment
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 04:47:29PM +, Joel Hutton wrote:
> Hi Segher,
>
> > If you want the const_vector for r97, you should look at the combination
> > that tries *that* insn together with 10 and 12. Did it try that?
> Why not?
>
> It did not attempt to combine all three, I'm not sure w
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:46:31PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> So this insn 5 makes it hard to combine with insn 9, because you'll quickly
> need a four insn combination, and those are restricted somewhat. But 10+11
> should do something. But it seems it isn't tried at all? Huh.
That's b
Hi,
My goal is to create optimal C bindings for Atari ST system calls, using
m68k-elf-gcc (tested with version 7.1.0). Basically, system calls are
similar to function calls: parameters are stacked in the reverse order, last
one being a function number. But there are 2 differences from standard
On 6/17/19 2:28 PM, Vincent Rivière wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My goal is to create optimal C bindings for Atari ST system calls, using
> m68k-elf-gcc (tested with version 7.1.0). Basically, system calls are
> similar to function calls: parameters are stacked in the reverse order,
> last one being a functio
Hi!
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:28:37PM +0200, Vincent Rivière wrote:
> My goal is to create optimal C bindings for Atari ST system calls, using
> m68k-elf-gcc (tested with version 7.1.0). Basically, system calls are
> similar to function calls: parameters are stacked in the reverse order,
> las
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 04:05:57PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 6/17/19 2:28 PM, Vincent Rivière wrote:
> So what you have here is two different ABIs that have to coexist together?
In a way. He want to define something to do syscalls, which you could
view as a separate ABI yes.
> This is best add
18 matches
Mail list logo
