On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:34:23PM +0200, Michael Veksler wrote:
> Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> >
> >Reading the thread "Autoconf manual's coverage of signed integer
> >overflow & portability" I was horrified to discover about GCC's
> >miscompilation of the remainder expression that causes INT_MIN % -1
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 12:43:40AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-01-16 21:27:42 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > > I suspect that the best fix, in the sense of generating the best
> > > code, would be to do this at the tree level. That will give loop
> > > a
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:17:36AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 05:48:34PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > From a performance/convenience angle, the best place to handle this is
> > > either libc or the kernel. Either of thes
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 04:15:08PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > We do want to generate a trap for x / 0, of course.
> >
> > Really? Is this really defined to generate a trap in C?
> > I would be surprised if so
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:29:29AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >>A given program is written in one or the other of these two dialects.
> >>The program stands a chance to work on most any machine if it is
> >>compiled with the proper dialect. It is unlikely to work at all if
> >>compiled with t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:49:02AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Paul Schlie wrote:
>
> >- as trap representation within the context of C is a value
> >representation which is not defined to be a member of a type, where if
> >accessed or produced evokes undefined behavior; so admit as to the best o
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:14:59PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I don't know if this is a bug in gcc or the glibc... Consider the
> following program "traps1":
>
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> int main (int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> volatile long do
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:32:04PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> |
> | > The issue here is whether if the hardware consistently display a
> | > semantics, GCC should not allow access to that consistent semantics
> | > und
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 06:09:25PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andi Kleen:
>
> > Linux has a similar limit which comes from the OS (normally around 32k)
> > So it would be useful there for extreme cases too.
>
> IIRC, FreeBSD has a rather low limit, too. And there were discussions
> about
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:20:06PM +, Lucier, Bradley J via Gcc wrote:
> I’m seeing an “Illegal Instruction” fault and don’t quite know how to
> generate a proper bug report yet.
>
> This is the compiler:
>
> [Bradleys-Mac-mini:~] lucier% /usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc -v
> Using built-in spe
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 07:09:43PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:43:55PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Bernhard Schommer
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > if been working with the windriver Diab c compiler for 32bit ppc for and
> >
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:42:05AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:33:44 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: "Ulrich Weigand"
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've been looking into supporting __float128 in the debugger, since we're
> > now introducing this type on PowerPC. Initially, I simp
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:13:37AM -0800, Bin Fan at Work wrote:
> Hi Szabolcs,
>
> > On Nov 29, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >
> > On 17/11/16 20:12, Bin Fan wrote:
> >>
> >> Although this ABI specification specifies that 16-byte properly aligned
> >> atomics are inlineable on pla
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:33:38PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
[snipped]
> (3) Note that ppc is both easier and more complicated.
>
> There we have 8 4-bit registers, although most of the integer
> non-comparisons only write to CR0. And the vector non-comparisons
> only write to CR1, th
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:11:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jonathan Wakely:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Rasmus Villemoes:
> >>
> >> > This is something I've sometimes found myself wishing was supported. The
> >> > idea being that one can say
> >>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 20:08, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:11:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Jonathan Wakely:
> > >
> > > > On Sun
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:28:48PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 17 March 2017 at 12:17, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
> > On Friday 17 March 2017 13:32:17 Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> >> Not my area of expertise, but it seems the Glorious Future (TM) in
> >> this area is something called the "language
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:51:21AM -0600, Sean McAllister wrote:
> When generating code for a simple inner loop (instantiated with
> std::complex)
>
> template
> void __attribute__((noinline)) benchcore(const cx* __restrict__ aa,
> const cx* __restrict__ bb, const cx* __restrict__ cc, cx* __restr
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:29:04AM +1200, Michael Clark wrote:
> Sorry I had to send again as my Apple mailer is munging emails. I’ve disabled
> RTF.
>
>
> This one is quite interesting:
>
> - https://cx.rv8.io/g/WXWMTG
>
> It’s another target independent bug. x86 is using some LEA followed by
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:56:10PM +1200, Michael Clark wrote:
>
> > On 18 Aug 2017, at 10:41 PM, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:29:04AM +1200, Michael Clark wrote:
> >> Sorry I had to send again as my Apple mailer is munging e
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Indeed an alternative approach to handling this problem in GCC would
> > be to adapt the Ada model for C and C++ which would not be too hard
> > to do I suspect. Then gcc cou
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:46:53AM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 09:34 +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > >for I in T'First .. Dynamic_N loop
> > > T (I) := 0.0
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 03:02:44PM -0400, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 20:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > > When I worked at AMD, I was starting to suspect that it may be more
> > > beneficial
> > > to re-enable the first schedule insns pass if you were compiling in 64-bit
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:18:06PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 10:15:58AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 01/06/2010 09:59 AM, Mark Colby wrote:
> > Yabbut, how come RTL cse can handle it in x86_64, but PPC not?
> > >>>
> > >>> Probably because the RTL on x86_64 use
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 01:34:09PM +0100, Sergio Ruocco wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am porting GCC to a custom 16-bit microcontroller with very limited
> addressing modes. Basically, it can only load/store using a (general
> purpose) register as the address, without any offset:
>
> LOAD
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 06:06:41PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >>> Hm. In fold-const.c we try to make sure to produce the same result
> >>> as the target would for constant-folding shifts. Thus, Paolo, I think
> >>> what fold-const.c does is what we should assume for
> >>> !SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNC
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
> >
> > On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
> > >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> > >>> While doing relocation work on
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:03:27PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > I noticed today that there were three projects which were merged into
> > the mainline within a 24 hour period yesterday.
> >
> > Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:42:49 - IAB - Daniel Berlin
> > Date: Thu, 19
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:56:13AM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the version 0.8.0 of qemu in the Debian-pool will not compile on
> PowerPC with GCC 3.4. The following patch will fix it:
And suck performance wise with exploding code size. Without
speaking of potential atomicity issu
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:45:04PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Tach auch!
>
> Am Fr, den 31 März 2006, schrieb Alan Modra:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:56:13AM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
>
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:21:46AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Has work been done to evaluate a calling convention that takes error
> checks like this into account? Are there size/performance wins? Or am
> I just reinventing a variation on exception handling?
It's fairly close to Fortran alternate r
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> targeting AMD64 alias x86_64 with -O3, GCC 10.2.0 generates the
> following code (13 instructions using 57 bytes, plus 4 quadwords
> using 32 bytes) for __builtin_trunc() when -msse4.1 is NOT given:
>
>
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 01:58:12PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> targeting AMD64 alias x86_64 with -O3, GCC 10.2.0 generate
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 02:43:34PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 01:58:12PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> >> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 09:27:34AM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> even recent 32-bit architectures such as RISC-V do not support 64-bit atomic
> operations. Using -fprofile-update=atomic for the 32-bit RISC-V RV32GC ISA
> yields:
>
> warning: target does not support atomic profile up
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 06:01:22PM +0200, Andy via Gcc wrote:
> I see it in godbolt
> GCC compiles to:
> movsx eax, BYTE PTR [rdi+2]
> cmp al, 9
> ja .L42
> Clang:
> movzx edx, byte ptr [rdi + 2]
> cmp edx, 9
> ja .LBB0_40
>
>
> GCC extend with sign, Clang with zero.
> cmp with 32 bit register is
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:28:56AM +0300, Sergey Kljopov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reading the text
> -
> In a structure initializer, specify the name of a field to
> initialize with `.fieldname =' before the element value. For
> example, given the following structure,
> struct point { int
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:52:27PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> >
> >> IMO, at the /very least/, libstdc++ should go ahead and change std::string
> >> to be the new implementation. Once std::string is ABI-incompatible between
>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:51:29PM +0100, David Brown wrote:
> Is there much to be gained from keeping 486 support - or
> alternatively, is there much to be gained by dropping it at the same
> time?
In practice, there is very little difference betweeen 486 and Pentium
for code what will be genera
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:21:04PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2013-01-17 06:53:45 +0100, Mischa Baars wrote:
> > Also this was not what I intended to do, I was trying to work with quiet
> > not-a-numbers explicitly to avoid the 'invalid operation' exception to be
> > triggered, so that my p
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:46:04AM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 11:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >>I've add pages comparing LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC 4.8 on
> >>http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/.
> >>
> >>The pages ar
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 03:57:05PM +0400, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Discovered this optimization possibilty on private backend, but can
> easily reproduce on x86
>
> Consider code, say test.c:
>
> static __attribute__((noinline)) unsigned int*
> proxy1( unsigned int* codeBuffer, uns
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:55:19PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've just noted an error in my calculations: not 40%, but 10%
> regression (used gdb to do the calculations and forgot to convert
> inputs to float). Sorry.
>
> But the problem still persists for me - I'm building an e
Hello Sergei,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:13:59PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
> I don't know now, actually, this is what I'm asking. As for the
> target processor - as I stated in the initial message:
>
> ...
> Currently, it builds as following:
> ppc-linux-gcc -g -Os -fPIC -ffixed-r14
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:48:10PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> >Sergei Poselenov writes:
> > > Hello Andrew,
> > >
> > > > Now, I sympathize that in your particular case you have a code size
> > > > regression. This happens: when we do optimization in
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 01:38:01AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes:
>
> > Robert Dewar writes:
> > >Yes, and that is what we would want for Ada, so I am puzzled by your
> > >sigh. All Ada needs to do is to issue a constraint_error exception,
> > >it does not need t
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 03:50:34PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Joel Sherrill
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I ran into something tracking down a test
> >>failure on psim and now thing there is a
> >>target specific iss
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:52:43AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
> >Was this repo made with svnimport or git-svn? svnimport is faster but
> >chooses bad delta bases as a result. git repack -a -d -f would allow
> >git to choose better deltas rather than reusing the de
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:47:11AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >On Thu, 2007-05-31 21:34:33 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>I've set up a Git mirror of the entire GCC history on
> >>server space kindly provided by David Woodhouse.
> >>
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:15PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-01 12:12:59 +0200, Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:47:11AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > > Be our guest, and let me know if you find a way
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> >I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repository
> >with git-gc --aggressive. It is quite impressive: the size of
> >the pack file was almost cut in h
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:57:36AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >>Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >>
> >>>I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repos
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:47:19PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> Some interesting stats from the highly packed gcc repo. The long chain
> lengths very quickly tail off. Over 60% of the objects have a chain
> length of 20 or less. If anyone wants the full list let me know. I
> also have includ
53 matches
Mail list logo
