It looks like a bunch of missing from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-02/ are missing. Anybody knows
what could be the cause?
Paolo
> The slush that I requested last week has been lifted. However, I have
> asked for relative calm until the cond-optab branch has been merged to
> mainline, which will hopefully occur on Friday, May 8th.
cond-optab branch was bootstrapped on arm-linux among other targets, so
the merge should not
> It seems that when set in a loop, the program is able to perform some
> type of optimization to actually get the use of the offsets where as
> in the case of no loop, we have twice the calculations of instructions
> for each address calculations.
I suggest you look at the dumps for i386 to see
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>
>> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
>> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
>> implication, zero_extract) from
>>
>> If @var{loc} is in memory, its mode must be a single-byte integer
Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 10:52 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> Would those that know, (or even those that are just generally vocal) be
>> willing to support a change rtl.texi for sign_extract (and by
>> implication, zero_extract) from ...
>> to a version that explicitly prohibits t
Subject says it all, I guess.
Paolo
> What I noticed is that if I CC_STATUS_INIT (in xxx_notice_update_cc()) even
> for insn that
> do not require it (that are almost all of them - being only cmp/fcmp/test
> that modify cc0),
> cmpdf gets emitted regularly.
If so, you should not be using cc0, but a CCmode register instead.
See fo
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Subject says it all, I guess.
And so it does now. wwwdocs was also updated.
Paolo
>> 3. Your SPEC FP benchmarks tell me two things: GCC 4.4's fortran support is
>> dramatically better than 4.2's (which llvm 2.5 uses), and your art/mgrid
>> hacks apparently do great stuff :).
>
> Something like the "art hack" is in ipa-struct-reorg, but it is not
> enabled at any level. If gcc
Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I have a hard time understanding the code size numbers. Does 10% mean
>>> that
>>> GCC is generating 10% bigger or 10% smaller code than llvm?
>> I have a different comment on the code size nu
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> From looking http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/I2Size32.png it does
>> not look that bad at all. For SpecFP it is different, but code size is
>
> The code size seems to be much worse than LLVM at least, unless
> I misread the graphs.
Not really, see http://vmakarov.fedo
Hi all,
for my next patch to fwprop for PR33928, I need a dominator walk and I
would have liked to use domwalk.c; however it is only for trees at the
moment, while I need it on RTL.
I was thinking therefore of removing the following fields from the
dominator walk callbacks:
BOOL_BITFIELD walk_
I would conclude from the statistics that, right now, the cost of
including -fforward-propagate in -O1 overrides any performance benefit
that may result.
I'm still working on a patch to eliminate reaching definitions from fwprop.
Paolo
My feeling is on the contrary that the set of people having a real
knowledge of gcc (or at least of substantial parts of it [*]) is much
bigger than the set of reviewers allowed to say OK.
That's certainly true, but there's a big difference between having real
knowledge of gcc and having enoug
Bernd Roesch wrote:
Hi,
I search gcc ML and find this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-05/msg00413.html
but here i have source with no 64 bit CPU.
is the fix now in and should i test current gcc4.4 ?
The fix is machine-dependent (the message you quoted referred to the
poster's proprietary po
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
be, most things support it, and there are some cool possibilities,
like gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/). It is precisely built
I think a critical feature of any fancy code review system (or of how it
is configured for
In asking this, I'm particularly puzzled by code like this in
build_base_path in cp/class.c:
/* Don't bother with the calculations inside sizeof; they'll ICE if the
source type is incomplete and the pointer value doesn't matter. */
if (skip_evaluation)
{
expr = build_nop (bu
struct B {};
struct D : public B {
static const int i = sizeof((B*)(D*)0);
};
struct Z {};
struct A : Z {};
Z* implicitToZ (Z*);
struct B : A {
static const int i = sizeof(implicitToZ((B*)0));
};
struct B {};
struct D;
D* p;
struct D: public B
Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
I've gone back to this problem (since I've solved another one ;-)).
And I've moved forward a bit:
It seems that if I consider an array of characters, there are no
longer any shifts and therefore I do get my two loads with the use of
an offset:
The reason there are
This is one example, but it illustrates a general concept that I think
is really useful and I personally have used numerous times for lots of
other instructions than SCAS. If there is a way to achieve this
without using a naked function then please advise.
Keeping the __asm syntax, I'd be surpr
- Memory consumption in cc1/cc1plus at -Ox -g over that set of apps.
Wouldn't this be expected to be strongly correlated with the above? Is
-fmem-report processed by mem-stats what you're after?
People usually just look at top's output, but Honza has a memory tester
so I thought maybe you
田晓南 wrote:
> Hello, guys:
> The porting is really a difficult and huge job. So many things I
> don't know or miss result in countless bugs.
It should not be hard. You have to tell us however why this is
unrecognizable, that is, what would be the "closest" recognizable insn
supported by you
I took a look. I don't think it would be hideously hacky to do something
like ...
#define EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP(BITMAP, MIN, BITNUM, ITER) \
for ((BITMAP)->ro_flag = true, \
bmp_iter_set_init (&(ITER), (BITMAP), (MIN), &(BITNUM));
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
unless you care about C++ style.
Dave Korn wrote:
> daniel.tian wrote:
>
2) what pass is producing those subregs?
>> This is really puzzled me. I just wrote the PROMOTE_MODE like MIPS.
>
>> Any advice?
>
> Turn on the RTL dump files and see where the subregs first appear?
Yes, that's waht I meant.
Paolo
"CC=../../xgcc -B../../" \
+ "LINKER=$(CXX)" \
"CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS) $(WARN_CFLAGS)" \
I think you should rather do
"CC=../../xgcc -B../../" \
+ "CXX=../../g++ -B../../" \
"CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS) $(WARN_CFLAGS)" \
+ "CXXFLAGS=$(CXXFLAGS) $(WARN_CFLAGS)" \
>> [r...@ps3 gcc-4.4.0]# ./configure --prefix=/usr
>> --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
>> --with-as=/usr/bin/ppu-as --with-ld=/usr/bin/ppu-ld --enable-threads
>> --with-system-zlib --disable-checking --enable-__cxa_atexit
>> --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-languages=c,c++,f
On 06/30/2009 07:26 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
What to do, oh what to do...
Does it work to:
mv include/elf include/elfold
svn up include/elf
cp -R include/elfold/* include/elf
rm -rf include/elfold
svn revert include/elf/dwarf2.h
?
Paolo
Could you please have a look ?
I'm reverting the expand_expr_real_1 part (the part that introduced the
assertion).
Paolo
Here it is. I committed it.
2009-07-01 Paolo Bonzini
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Reinstate fallthrough to
TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR.
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 149135)
+++ expr.c (working copy
On 07/02/2009 12:06 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote
Is this really a good idea? Surely the solution is to fix the
failures on Darwin.
I don't this is a good idea. As noted by Andrew Pinski, one failure
was Darwin specific and is now fixed, two others are powerpc ones.
When t
On 07/02/2009 03:09 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Note that revision 149171 not only breaks powerpc-apple-darwin9.7.0
but now also i686-pc-linux-gnu (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg00114.html).
I don't see any of the new failures reported in that message.
Paolo
> The powerpc tester won't do a run more often than once every 15
> minutes
Well, if the failure is in libgcc, that means that we get a mail on
every commit. In this case my patch went in on Sunday afternoon, and
the problems were fixed only on Thursday for multiple reasons (multiple
patches
On 07/03/2009 07:31 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only
on the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are
extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed.
Not clear what you mean about SPARC. The
What is wrong about failures being annoying?
Paolo, you could have reverted your original patch and worked with the
PowerPC developers to test a revised patch.
If I had been asked, I would have.
Paolo
On 04/26/2010 07:20 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
[1] France in my case, probably Europe in general. What you do in
your free time is yours by default, land grab clauses are not
accepted, and it's only when you work at home on things you also
do at work that questions can be asked.
That's true in
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble under
[trimming Cc list]
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble understanding how
I could demonstrate personal loss making the law suit worth persuing in
the first place.
Perhaps because you know the code better than anyone else, so you
could provide paid support on that derivative as well.
On 04/27/2010 11:42 AM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
Hi :
There is a pattern "define_insn "s_"" in mips md file, like
(define_insn "s_"
[(set (match_operand:CC 0 "register_operand" "=z")
(swapped_fcond:CC (match_operand:SCALARF 1 "register_operand" "f")
(match_operand:
On 04/27/2010 03:46 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is all relatively easily handled under the copyright policy on
the academic side of the house for students and faculty.
Unless it's "institutional work"... I was in the same boat during my
own Ph.D. studies, cherrypicking what to send for inclu
On 04/28/2010 03:47 AM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
You can get the RTL for these patterns when expanding stores like
a = (b < c);
In this case, GCC tries to avoid a conditional branch and (I suppose you are
on GCC<4.5) instead of cmp and b you go through cmp and
s. cmp does nothing but stashin
On 04/28/2010 12:33 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
1) The back-and-forth is too much for casual contributors. If it is
more effort to do the legal work than to submit the first patch,
then they will never submit any patch at all.
Please do not exaggerate, if people have time for threads
On 05/25/2010 09:55 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
1) Group front end objects in Makefile.in under e.g. ALL_HOST_FRONTEND_OBJS
2) Add a new build rule that adds an extra define -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND
3) Conditionally poison symbols in system.h
For the last step, that would be e.g.:
#ifdef IN_GCC_FRONTEND
On 05/25/2010 12:13 PM, Revital1 Eres wrote:
Hello,
I am using current mainline to compile a testcase which contains a loop.
The target I'm working on supports cmpsi pattern.
While expanding the loop condition I get that do_compare_rtx_and_jump ()
and
do_jump_by_parts_greater_rtx () call eac
On 05/25/2010 03:01 PM, Revital1 Eres wrote:
Hello,
Just did so... :-)
and it indeed solves this.
Remember to do the same for cstore.
Most of the time it will remove more code from your target than it adds.
I think that it did so for basically all targets in GCC 4.5, sometimes
cutting up t
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 16:59, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Steven Bosscher writes:
>
>> So I guess this plan of mine is not going to work...
>> Other ideas?
>
> Add $(CFLAGS-$(@F)) to the .c.o rule
Actually $@ is fine, since you want cp/tree.o to have different flags
from tree.o.
> and define CFLAG
All,
the toplevel configury of gcc/gdb/binutils is very much out of sync.
If people agree, I would like to freeze commits to the toplevel
configury until they are not diverging anymore.
Also, I would like to make a new policy that from now on patches to the
toplevel cannot be committed by an
On 05/25/2010 07:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:06:16PM CEST:
the toplevel configury of gcc/gdb/binutils is very much out of sync.
Unfortunately I don't have much time to devote to bringing the trees
back in shape, and not even to chase
> Remainders, in reverse chronological order:
Thanks Ralf. I'm CCing the people.
Paolo
> 2010-05-05 Sebastian Pop
>
> * configure.ac: Allow all the versions greater than 0.10 of PPL.
> * configure: Regenerated.
>
>
> 2010-04-16 Rainer Orth
>
> * configure.ac: Check for el
On 05/27/2010 06:58 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Well, it looks like I do need something like @F because I now only get
the define on files in gcc/. Any file with a / in the full name $@
does not get a file specific CFLAGS.
Interesting, this simpler testcase worked:
test-a/b = $(warning ok)
all
On 05/26/2010 09:25 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
What we can't do under this scheme is retroactively re-use code
as documentation or vice versa; we'd need the appropriate license
grant from the FSF for each bit of code/documentation that we want
to re-use in that manner.
Does it help that large pa
On 05/27/2010 08:25 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Well, gives me at least one clue so far: the implicit rule .c.o is
over-ruled by t-i386, which explains why the extra CFLAGS-$file are
not passed to config/i386/i386-c.c. I'm now restartin
On 05/27/2010 10:02 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
On 05/26/2010 09:25 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
What we can't do under this scheme is retroactively re-use code
as documentation or vice versa; we'd need the appropriate license
grant from the FSF for each b
gcc/ChangeLog:
* Makefile.in (ALL_CFLAGS): Add file-specific CFLAGS.
(ALL_HOST_FRONTEND_OBJS): New, for all front-end specific objects.
(ALL_HOST_BACKEND_OBJS): New, for all backend and target objects.
(ALL_HOST_OBJS): Now a union of the above two.
:
On 05/27/2010 10:10 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
-/* FIXME: Still need to include rtl.h here (via expr.h) in a front-end file.
- Pretend this is a back-end file. */
-#define IN_GCC_BACKEND
#include "expr.h" /* For vector_mode_valid_p */
Is this really the only reason? We don't have any othe
On 05/27/2010 12:33 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
while GCC3.4.4 treats the long long multiplication just like simple
ones, which generates only one
mult insn for each statement, like
In my understanding, It‘s not necessary using three mult insn to implement
long long mult, since the operands are conve
On 05/28/2010 06:36 AM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
Dear GCC developers,
Would you please consider suppressing (relatively new) warnings like
this one:
ignoring return value of 'int chdir(const char*)', declared with
attribute warn_unused_result
in cases when the source code ex
On 05/26/2010 07:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
This is the reason why we implemented TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS as
macro (note that all the other address-space related back-end
callbacks were already implemented as hooks to begin with).
One nice cleanup would be to merge the per-address-space ho
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 18:12, Vakatov, Denis (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E]
wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> Can this design please be changed
By saying "by design" I was implying that it won't.
FWIW I agree with you, but I'm also very undecided whether it is not
glibc that was too greedy in applying __wur (which al
On 05/31/2010 11:48 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
C90 does not have long long either, yet we use it as required (for HWI).
No, we use it when present but we don't require it, see hwint.h.
Both of you are right, as our requirements for building a cross compiler
are stricter than for a native compi
On 05/31/2010 12:30 PM, 徐持恒 wrote:
I think compiler can and should be host independent, like LLVM.
It is. Changes to code generation depending on the host are considered
to be serious bugs, and have been long before LLVM existed.
Paolo
On 05/31/2010 06:26 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 08:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
There's no reason to get into these kinds of questions at this point.
The goal is not to reimplement GCC from the ground up using modern
OO/C++ techniques. The goal is simply to permit ou
On 06/01/2010 04:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
In the gccgo IR I don't represent everything with a single type.
Instead, I use a separate base class for types, expressions and
statements (in Go there is more of a distinction between expressions
and statements than there is in C/C++). I represe
Well, on the one hand I agree - but on the other hand I see people
eagerly waiting to be the first to post patches to convert all
VEC uses that allocate from the heap(!) (yes - we can't use STL
for GC allocated stuff!), leaving us with files that use a mix of
stl::vector and VEC. VEC is clearly s
On 06/02/2010 03:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
In the guidelines, I would like to include:
(2) if you define a class template used mostly with pointer type arguments,
consider specializing for void* (or const void*) and define all other
pointer specialization in terms of th
On 06/02/2010 03:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Richard Guenther writes:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Richard Guenther writes:
Overall the wiki document looks good. I'd like to disallow
* Operators may only be overloaded for types which implement numeric
value
On 06/01/2010 08:10 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
I am pleased to report that the GCC Steering Committee and the FSF have
approved the use of C++ in GCC itself. Of course, there's no reason for
us to use C++ features just because we can. The goal is a better
compiler for
On 06/07/2010 09:38 AM, pem wrote:
I am not familar with both c++ and compiler implementation, donot konw
why the results are differnt for gcc and clang. Anyone could help and
explain this difference for me?
First of all, this would be a question for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. This
mailing list is
From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00501.html:
we looked at the current list of primary and
secondary targets and suggested (again) to demote i686-apple-darwin to
a secondary platform on the base that it is unmaintained. We
recognize that it is used and gets many bugs filed against.
It w
On 06/08/2010 06:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:05 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So perhaps the thing to do is somehow separate patches from regular
contributors and irregular contributors. A relatively easy way to do
this would be for a regular contributor to include a ke
On 06/08/2010 09:21 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:18 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I don't understand. WAA rights definitely allow you to shepherd and commit
patches from people without svn access, even for patches you can't approve.
And basile (and other WAA c
On 06/08/2010 10:37 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Are there ways that we can adjust our e-mail messages to make this
work better?
Two things: 1) we should make the [bracket] prefixes more standard for
patches destined to feature branches; 2) we should likely not send
multiple patches in one ema
On 06/09/2010 10:03 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
Hi Manuel,
2) Use the command-line patchwork client to update patch state when a
patch is committed. People have done this with a git post-commit hook to
update the state of the patch in patchwork; I'm not sure if svn has
something equivalent.
Yes it
On 06/10/2010 06:28 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
Hi Paolo,
The hash would be different for git diff and svn diff due to the
different headers.
The headers are not included in the hash. However, the filenames will need to
be the same - patchwork expects '-p1' patches, but normalises the top-level
di
On 06/10/2010 10:57 AM, yuanbin wrote:
initialization of the enum:
you mean union.
enum {
int i;
float f;
} t={1.5}; //t.f
The above makes no sense, what if you have int and char?
You have to say
union { ... } t = { .f = 1.5 };
and that already works in G
On 06/11/2010 10:15 AM, yuanbin wrote:
gcc initial the first member of union now, This is not the C standard also.
I just want gcc initial the last member of union with some switch.
Why do you want the last one? Is there a compiler that does that (e.g.
MSVC++)? If yes, it can be toggled by -
On 06/11/2010 03:26 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Ah, so the problem is the missing -flto in the second compilation
step? I think this is a bug in the compiler for not reporting this
somehow. Is there are PR open for this?
Compiler can not report it because it does not see the other object files.
It i
On 06/15/2010 11:02 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Just noticed the following also in optabs.c:
/* We can't do it with an insn, so use a library call. But first ensure
that the mode of TO is at least as wide as SImode, since those are the
only library calls we know about. */
if (
On 06/29/2010 04:16 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Ian> In Tom's interesting idea, we would write the mark function by hand for
Ian> each C++ type that we use GTY with.
I think we should be clear that the need to write a mark function for a
new type is a drawback of this approach. Perhaps gengtype cou
On 06/29/2010 06:48 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 06/29/2010 04:16 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Ian> In Tom's interesting idea, we would write the mark function by hand for
Ian> each C++ type that we use GTY with.
I think w
On 06/30/2010 09:43 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
He understood your point very well. That is why Frank said, "You
falsely presume zero vetting."
Maybe I didn't get the zero vetting part, then. I thought I did, but
apparently not. What does t
On 07/01/2010 02:27 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
When risks of the patch mostly involve type checking or things that
could be caught with a simple compilation, could we relax this
testing requirement to do a cross-build of all-gcc all-target-libgcc
with a recent fully bootstrapped compiler, with -We
On 06/30/2010 11:18 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
How do distributions makers achieve that?? IIRC they have a strict rule
that no compilation or build should run under root!
You use "make install DESTDIR=`pwd`/buildroot" and then copy the
contents of the buildroot into the real root (e.g. w
On 07/01/2010 02:57 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
On 07/01/2010 02:27 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
When risks of the patch mostly involve type checking or things that
could be caught with a simple compilation, could we relax this
testing requirement to do a cross-build of all
On 07/01/2010 03:26 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Sorry, I meant that it should not give any warning, not that -Werror is
in use.
Well, what we want for a bootstrap replacement is that it gives errors
for everything where a bootstrap gives errors.
--enable-werror-always
On 07/01/2010 03:34 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
On 07/01/2010 03:26 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Well, what we want for a bootstrap replacement is that it gives
errors for everything where a bootstrap gives errors.
--enable-werror-always?
No, we don't want -Werro
On 07/10/2010 10:01 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Well, let me add one short comment then. I'd say hppa2-hpux is still
much more relevant than ia64-hpux -- at least, everywhere I'm looking
i.e. workstations. It may be different in the server market.
Anywa
On 07/08/2010 10:58 PM, Maxiwell Garcia wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a paper about instruction-set architecture simulators. In
first time, I used gcc-4.4.0 and the compilation time reached 33
minutes (with -O3) for my simulator and the performance reached 270
MIPS (Million instruction per second). Wh
On 07/13/2010 04:53 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/08/2010 10:58 PM, Maxiwell Garcia wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a paper about instruction-set architecture simulators. In
first time, I used gcc-4.4.0 and the compilation time reached 33
On 07/13/2010 04:53 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/08/2010 10:58 PM, Maxiwell Garcia wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a paper about instruction-set architecture simulators. In
first time, I used gcc-4.4.0 and the compilation time reached 33
On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
int test (int a, int c)
{
return a<< (c& 0x1f);
}
The macro was defined as:
+/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCAT
think it can be useful for x86.
Paolo
patch 1/4:
2009-03-13 Paolo Bonzini
* combine.c (expand_compound_operation): Fix thinko.
(simplify_shift_const_1): Avoid noncanonical rtx.
Index: gcc/combine.c
===
--- gcc/combin
On 08/03/2010 01:35 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
That is true, but very often the documentation is needed in two
places: in the code and in the manual. Especially for things like
machine constraints, flags and options.
Yes, but the audiences are different between users who read the manual and
deve
On 08/04/2010 07:34 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals,
> > one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other
> > containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a
> > book, the generated part
On 08/04/2010 08:48 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply
that GCC should have an "options manual" separate from the user's
manual.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a sepera
On 08/04/2010 10:52 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
> for various architectures and systems that
On 08/04/2010 11:52 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL->GFDL I
cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, beca
On 08/08/2010 07:13 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Vincent Lefevre:
On 2010-08-07 13:38:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* John Regehr:
[...]
Let me know if more detail is needed or if it would be better for me to
file all 71 bug reports.
I wonder if we should give up and make -fwrapv the defa
On 08/09/2010 01:39 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
(define_expand "cbranchsi4"
[(parallel [(set (cc0)
(compare (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "")
(match_operand:SI 2 "nonmemory_operand" "")))
(clobber (match_scratch:QI 4 ""))])
On 08/24/2010 07:38 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
(actually, this happened to us before e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02178.html etc).
Sorry, but that's what happens when you ignore the maintainers' opinion.
Do not misunderstand me: I'm very interested in your works and
601 - 700 of 1079 matches
Mail list logo
