nvptx: Don't use PTX '.const', constant state space [PR119573] (was: 'TREE_READONLY' for 'const' array in C vs. C++)

Hi! I have, by the way, filed "nvptx: PTX '.const', constant state space" for this topic. On 2025-04-01T09:32:46+0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 09:19:08AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:04 AM Thomas Schwinge

RE: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is optimized away.

I stated that poorly. After I generate the GENERIC, and I hand the tree over to the middle end, it is the call to BUILT_IN_EXIT that seems to be disappearing. Everything I describe here is occurring with a -O0 build of GCC and GCOBOL. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Dubner > Sent: T

RE: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is optimized away.

I will try again. First, the explicit call to "exit" is also being optimized away. Second, grepping indicates I am the only one in GCC trying to use BUILT_IN_EXIT. So, let me rephrase: What GENERIC do I have to create that will do the equivalent of calling exit() in a C program? Thanks. > ---

COBOL: A call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT) is being optimized away

Re: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is optimized away.

Nah, I see ECF_TM_PURE despite the name seems to be doing something very different than ECF_CONST and ECF_PURE: if (flags & ECF_PURE) DECL_PURE_P (decl) = 1; ... if ((flags & ECF_TM_PURE) && flag_tm) apply_tm_attr (decl, get_identifier ("transaction_pure")); Still, you may try to

Re: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is optimized away.

Perhaps it is because you are using ECF_TM_PURE when defining the built-in in cobol1.cc: #define ATTR_TMPURE_NORETURN_NOTHROW_LEAF_COLD_LIST (ECF_TM_PURE|ECF_NORETURN|ECF_NOTHROW|ECF_LEAF|ECF_COLD) [...] gfc_define_builtin ("__builtin_exit", ftype, BUILT_IN_EXIT, "exit", ATTR_T

RE: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is optimized away.

Jose, I appreciate the attempt. But using the same #define ATTR_NORETURN_NOTHROW_LIST (ECF_NORETURN|ECF_NOTHROW) as found in gcc/builtins.def make no difference. Thanks, though. Bob D. > -Original Message- > From: Jose E. Marchesi > Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 19:27 > To: Robert

Re: Memory access in GIMPLE

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 2:23 AM Krister Walfridsson via Gcc wrote: I have more questions about GIMPLE memory semantics for smtgcc. As before, each section starts with a description of the semantics I've implemented (or plan to implement), followed by

Re: [GSoC] Tooling for running BPF GCC tests on a live kernel

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > Hello Piyush. Hello Jose, > Sounds like a quite good background. Thank you! > Have you built GCC from sources? Yes, I have. I built GCC while working on LFS and recently rebuilt it, running the test suite while going through the "Before

Re: [GSoC] Tooling for running BPF GCC tests on a live kernel

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM Jose E. Marchesi > wrote: >> >> Hello Piyush. > Hello Jose, > >> Sounds like a quite good background. > Thank you! > >> Have you built GCC from sources? > Yes, I have. I built GCC while working on LFS and recently rebuilt it, > running the test suite while going