On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:38 PM Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I want amdgcn to be able to support int128 types, partly because they
> might come up in code offloaded from x86_64 code, and partly because
> libgomp now requires at least some support (amdgcn builds have been
> failing since ye
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:31 PM Gary Oblock wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> As you know I'm working on a structure reorganization optimization.
> The particular one I'm working on is called instance interleaving.
> For the particular case I'm working on now, there is a single array
> of structures being
* Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> A problem that I keep running into is functions defined headers, but used in
> sources files that are compiled with different CPU feature flags (for runtime
> CPU feature selection).
>
> We know to make sure the functions are inlinable and their address never
> taken,
On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 10:33:35 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> > A problem that I keep running into is functions defined headers, but used
> > in sources files that are compiled with different CPU feature flags (for
> > runtime CPU feature selection).
> >
> > We know to
* Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 10:33:35 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
>> > A problem that I keep running into is functions defined headers, but used
>> > in sources files that are compiled with different CPU feature flags (for
>> > runtime CPU feature
Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if someone knows which tar version / configuration was being used
when creating gcc-10.2.0 tarballs ?
I'm getting some directory checksum errors while trying to unpack it with the
AIX tar (which can be a bit old). But they are disappearing when I'm building
these tar
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 11:59, CHIGOT, CLEMENT via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm wondering if someone knows which tar version / configuration was being
> used when creating gcc-10.2.0 tarballs ?
GNU tar 1.30, I think.
>
> I'm getting some directory checksum errors while trying to unpack it
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 12:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 11:59, CHIGOT, CLEMENT via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm wondering if someone knows which tar version / configuration was being
> > used when creating gcc-10.2.0 tarballs ?
>
> GNU tar 1.30, I think.
I
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:59 PM CHIGOT, CLEMENT via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm wondering if someone knows which tar version / configuration was being
> used when creating gcc-10.2.0 tarballs ?
>
> I'm getting some directory checksum errors while trying to unpack it with the
> AIX tar (
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:59 PM CHIGOT, CLEMENT via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm wondering if someone knows which tar version / configuration was being
> > used when creating gcc-10.2.0 tarballs ?
> >
> > I'm getting some directory checksum errors while trying to unpack it wit
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 7:58 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:59 PM CHIGOT, CLEMENT via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm wondering if someone knows which tar version / configuration was being
> > used when creating gcc-10.2.0 tarballs ?
> >
> > I'm get
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
> This patchset brings back struct reorg to GCC.
>
> We’ve been working on improving cache utilization recently and would
> like to share our current implementation to receive some feedback on it.
>
> Essentially, we’ve implemented the following
On 27/07/2020 14:36, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
This patchset brings back struct reorg to GCC.
We’ve been working on improving cache utilization recently and would
like to share our current implementation to receive some feedback on it.
Essent
Hi Richard,
On 7/27/20 2:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Erick Ochoa
> wrote:
>>
>> This patchset brings back struct reorg to GCC.
>>
>> We’ve been working on improving cache utilization recently and would
>> like to share our current implementation to receive some
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 02:52:21PM +0200, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> I will work on making this more readable. I understand your comments and you
> are right. I am currently in the process of writing a human-readable PDF
> with an overview of this. There is already a (somewhat hurried) version of
> this
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:59 PM Christoph Müllner
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 7/27/20 2:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Erick Ochoa
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This patchset brings back struct reorg to GCC.
> >>
> >> We’ve been working on improving cache utilization re
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:03 AM Christoph Müllner
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 7/27/20 2:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Erick Ochoa
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This patchset brings back struct reorg to GCC.
> >>
> >> We’ve been working on improving cache utilization re
Hello,
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
> if ( TYPE_P ( type) )
> {
>TREE_TYPE ( ssa_name) = TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT ( type);
>if ( ssa_defined_default_def_p ( ssa_name) )
> {
> // I guessing which I know is a terrible thing to do...
>
On 24/07/2020 17:43, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> This patchset brings back struct reorg to GCC.
>
> We’ve been working on improving cache utilization recently and would
> like to share our current implementation to receive some feedback on it.
>
> Essentially, we’ve implemented the following components:
Almost all of the makes sense to.
I'm not sure what a conditionally initialized pointer is.
You mention VAR_DECL but I assume this is for
completeness and not something I'll run across
associated with a default def (but then again I don't
understand notion of a conditionally initialized
pointer.)
20 matches
Mail list logo
