Re: Question about omp-low.c

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:46:40AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > I have a question regarding the parallel for implementation. I am > implementing _Cilk_for based on the routines in omp-low.c and I would like to > create a child function but would like to move the items that > gimplify_omp

Re: Question about omp-low.c

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:29:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > OpenMP also supports C++ iterators, so I don't see why you don't follow > > that. > > The iterators are lowered already by the C++ FE, what the middle-end sees is > > an integral iterator. Just look at one of the several > > libgo

Re: Question about omp-low.c

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:16:57PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > Don't do this, compute loop count during omp expansion (there is already > > code that does that for you, after all, for #pragma omp for the loop count > > is > > typically (unless static schedule) passed as parameter to the runti

Re: Question about omp-low.c

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:14:16AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > I looked into this, but the issue I have is, for the following code: > > Int main (void) { > _Cilk_for (int ii = W; ii < (X+Y); ii = ii + (q+z)) This doesn't have a body, Int won't compile either. Can you post -fdump-t

Re: Undefined behavior or gcc is doing additional good job?

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 04:12:19PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: > Hi, For below simple example: > #include > > extern uint32_t __bss_start[]; > extern uint32_t __data_start[]; > > void Reset_Handler(void) > { > /* Clear .bss section (initialize with zeros) */ > for (uint32_t* bss_ptr = __bss_start;

Re: Undefined behavior or gcc is doing additional good job?

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 04:44:48PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> extern uint32_t __bss_start[]; > >> extern uint32_t __data_start[]; > >> > >> void Reset_Handler(void) > >> { > >> /* Clear .bss section (initialize with zeros) */ > >> for (uint32_t* bss_ptr = __bss_start; bss_ptr != __data_start; +

Re: Why __builtin_sqrt do not totally replace sqrt in asm

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 10:44:21AM +0100, BELBACHIR Selim wrote: > When the standard pattern 'sqrtm2' is defined I don't understand why calls > to sqrt or __builtin_sqrt is always followed by a comparison of the result > with itself (checking the NaN ?) and a conditional branch to sqrt symbol > (so

Re: How to generate AVX512 instructions now (just to look at them).

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:04:55PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > I am trying to figure out how the top-consuming routines in our > weather models will be compiled when using AVX512 instructions (and > their 32 512 bit registers). > > I thought an up-to-date trunk version of gcc, using the command lin

Re: thread_local broken in gcc 4.8 ?

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:53:13PM +1000, Conrad S wrote: > According to http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html > the keyword "thread_local" is supported in gcc 4.8 when using -std=c++11 Bugs should be reported to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ > file foo.hpp: > class foo { > public: > in

Re: Undefined behavior or gcc is doing additional good job?

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:01:23PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: > Em, YES, it comes from ivopt rewriting, but, if it's not undefined > behavior, won't it be annoying (or simply wrong) for compiler to do > something not written by the code? If __bss_start of __data_start aren't 32-bit aligned, then it i

Re: wrong assertion in caller-save.c

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 08:21:49AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/11/14 03:04, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >Jeff Law writes: > >>On 01/10/14 14:44, Eric Botcazou wrote: > In my backend movdi pattern has unfortunately code '0' (depends on pattern > declaration order). When gcc tried to deter

Re: Context dependent expression simplification

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:40:36PM +, Paulo Matos wrote: > Before I start to write code to reinvent the wheel, I would like to know if > there's something already out there to do context dependent expression > simplification. > What I need is to simplify an expression at a given point in a BB

Re: -Wformat-security warnings generated in gcc build

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:09:25PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > --- gcc/c/c-convert.c (revision 206867) > +++ gcc/c/c-convert.c (working copy) > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ convert (tree type, tree expr) >if ((invalid_conv_diag > = targetm.invalid_conversion (TREE_TYPE (expr), type))) >

Re: [gomp4] Questions about "declare target" and "target update" pragmas

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:51:51PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > I have 2 questions concerning OpenMP 4.0 specification. > > > 1. Do I understand correctly that every "declare target" directive should be > closed with "end declare target"? E.g. in this example GCC marks both foo1 > and > foo2 wi

Re: tsan tests randomly failing

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:05:23PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote: > a couple of tsan tests: > > c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c > g++.dg/tsan/default_options.C > > relatively often fail for me at various optimization levels (eg, in > my last run the former at -O2: no WARNING: ThreadSanitizer

Re: clang vs free software

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:52:00PM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > o IMHO, the data in articles lack credability may be because a wrong > setup (by me or by phoronix). E.g. I tried to reproduce Scimark > results for GCC4.8 and LLVM3.3 from his article "LLVM Clang 3.4 > Already Has Some Performanc

Re: [gomp4] Questions about "declare target" and "target update" pragmas

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:54:09PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > Yes, when G is global variable marked with 'declare target', everything works > fine. But this testcase crashes at runtime in GOMP_target_update: > > int main () > { > int G = 2; > #pragma omp target update to(G) > G = 3; > in

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:18:33PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > Looks like there is a bug (in GOMP_target lowering? or in > gomp_map_vars_existing?) > The reproducer: > > #define N 1000 > > void foo () > { > int *a = malloc (N * sizeof (int)); > printf ("1: %p\n", a); > #pragma omp target da

Re: No TBAA before ptr_derefs_may_alias_p?

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:51:01AM +, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > If it is just for C++ placement new, why don't implement it as a lang_hook. > Now other languages such as C have to be made conservative and produce worse > code. Even in C++ code you don't use placement new that often, so e.g. by hav

Re: question about gtype-desc.c

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:12:13PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > Hello Jakub, > I think I have found a fix to _Cilk_for to be structured the way you > requested. I am currently trying to clean up my code so that I can send you a > patch. > > Now, I am trying to remove the 2 fields I

Re: question about gtype-desc.c

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:26:20PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > > gtype-desc.c:8176: error: âstruct gimple_omp_for_iterâ has no member > > > named âloop_countâ > > > gtype-desc.c:8178: error: âstruct gimple_omp_for_iterâ has no member > > > named âgrainâ > > > > > > These files are in the build

Re: -O3 and -ftree-vectorize

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:21:00PM -0500, Tim Prince wrote: > I'm seeing vectorization but no output from > -ftree-vectorizer-verbose, and no dot product vectorization inside > omp parallel regions, with gcc g++ or gfortran 4.9. Primary targets > are cygwin64 and linux x86_64. > I've been unable

Re: [GCC 4.8.1] Which section to emit, .eh_frame or .debug_section?

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:24:53PM +0530, Ramana wrote: > For C++ applications, on PPC, gcc v4.8.1 is generating the call frame > information in the .eh_frame section by default. > > Could you please tell me why .eh_frame is being generated instead of > .debug_frame? Because .eh_frame is the same

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:24:16PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > 2014-01-31 22:03 GMT+04:00 Jakub Jelinek : > > Implicit map(tofrom: a) on #pragma omp target is what the standard > > requires, so I don't see a bug on the compiler side. > > Jakub > > There

Re: Vectorizer Pragmas

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:56:42PM +, Renato Golin wrote: > 1. Local pragma (#pragma vectorize), which is losing badly on the > argument that it's yet-another pragma to do mostly the same thing many > others do. > > 2. Using OMP SIMD pragmas (#pragma simd, #pragma omp simd) which is > already

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:59:16PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On 14 Feb 16:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > So, perhaps we should just stop for now oring the copyfrom in and just use > > the copyfrom from the very first mapping only, and wait for what the > > committee &

Re: X86_64 insns combination is not working well

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:02:14AM +0800, lin zuojian wrote: >I wrote a test code like this: > void foo(int * a) > { > a[0] = 0xfafafafb; > a[1] = 0xfafafafc; > a[2] = 0xfafafafe; > a[3] = 0xfafafaff; > a[4] = 0xfafafaf0; > a[5] = 0xfafafaf1; > a[6] = 0xfafafaf2; >

GCC 4.9.0 Status Report (2014-03-13)

Status == The trunk is still in Stage 4, which means only patches fixing regressions and documentation issues are appropriate. Comparing to last year's status reports, we are something in between a fortnight and month behind the last year's schedule, but if enough attention is given to the re

Re: RedHat patch not found in mainline gcc

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:12:13PM +0100, Stefan Ring wrote: > At the company where I work, we have a large program using Boost > Python (1.54). We do our product builds for RHEL 5 and recently > started building using gcc 4.8 from RedHat devtoolset 2 for > performance. This works well, except for

Re: Builtin: stack pointer

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:38:11AM +, Renato Golin wrote: > There is a common pattern on bare-metal code to refer to the value of > registers directly in a variable: > > register unsigned long current_stack_pointer asm("sp"); I don't see what is wrong with this, this isn't inline asm, it is

Re: gcc-4.9: How to generate Makefile.in from a modified Makefile.am?

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > Of course not, but what's hindering upgrading the build system tools > when new source versions are released. And again, will the autotools > ever be backwards compatible? The autotools required versions change over time, but alway

Re: Builtin: stack pointer

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 03:44:39AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > (so you need to split by arch with ifdefs), > > Except it is already in the kernel anyways; not even by ifdefs but by > different files so the reasoning adding a new builtin is not useful. Not to mention that the kernel probably w

Re: Builtin: stack pointer

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:20:09AM +, Renato Golin wrote: > On 27 March 2014 10:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > I don't see what is wrong with this, this isn't inline asm, it is > > the local register var GNU extension, > > The argument I remember hearing of is th

Re: [patch] Fix texinfo warnings for doc/gcc.texi [was: Re: doc bugs]

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:51:58AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > 2014-03-29 Tobias Burnus > > PR other/59055 > * doc/bugreport.texi (Bugs): Remove nodes pointing to the > nirvana. > * doc/gcc.texi (Service): Update description in the @menu > * doc/invoke.texi (Opti

GCC 4.9.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

GCC 4.9.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org The first release candidate for GCC 4.9.0 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9.0-RC-20140411 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 209307. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release c

GCC 4.10.0 Status Report (2014-04-11), Stage 1 starts now

Status == The trunk has branched for the GCC 4.9 release and is now open again for general development, stage 1. Please consider not disrupting it too much during the RC phase of GCC 4.9 so it is possible to test important fixes for 4.9.0 on it. As for the version, we are temporarily using 4

GCC 4.9.0 Status Report (2014-04-11)

Status == We have reached zero P1 regressions today (and < 100 important regressions) and the branches/gcc-4_9-branch has been created today and GCC 4.9.0-rc1 built and announced. The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documentation fixes only, all changes to the branch require

Re: Rename unwind.h to unwind-gcc.h

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:03:42PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 15 April 2014 12:45, Douglas B Rupp wrote: > > No I considered that but I think that number will be very small. Will you > > concede, in hindsight, that it would be better had the name been chosen to > > be more unique? > > No a

Re: GCC 4.9.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote: > Hi, > > the opt_random.h header includes unconditionally and > breaks crytopp build > (redefinition of _mm_shuffle_epi8 in cpu.h). > could you please add #ifdef __SSSE3__ around this include? No, just fix cryptopp. The *intrin.h hea

Re: GCC 4.9.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 02:47:50PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: > Is it ok to port this patch to 4.9 branch: If it always fails to bootstrap with cilkrts on Android right now, then the patch can't do more harm, so ok. > > commit 15bee5d49b1c746fd3e784432d7e4988941a671e > Author: bviyer > Dat

Re: GCC 4.9.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:40:10PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: > That fixes "--disable-shared" case only, which is important for NDK build. > > Without "--disable-shared" build fails because there is no -lpthread > on Android and pthreads are in libc there. > Apparently, cilkrts configure doe

Re: GCC 4.9.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 02:04:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Ugh, I guess depends on how the patch looks like. > In any case, I think libgomp contains pretty much the same hunk as cilkrts, > so why you don't run into issues in libgomp and only in libcilkrts? > > # Check t

Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 02/09/2012 03:56 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> > >>> On 02/09/2012 03:28 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > So - do you have an

Re: Altering OpenMP emitted code

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 05:20:24PM -0500, Amittai Aviram wrote: > Hi! I'm reaching the point of exhaustion in trying to understand GCC > code, so I need help. I want to change the code that GCC emits when the > source code has an OpenMP reduction clause. Sounds like you want user defined reducti

Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:48:05PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > I think there is some consensus that crlibm is a great place to start > > for correctly-rounded elementary functions.  I think we'd need, or at > > least greatly appreciate, some help from your team. > > I agree. If crlibm can

Re: GCC: OpenMP posix pthread

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 04:50:58PM +0100, erotavlas_tu...@libero.it wrote: > Nobody can answer to my question? You can configure gcc not to use futexes in libgomp (--disable-linux-futex), but the default is to use them for performance reasons. Jakub

GCC 4.6.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

GCC 4.6.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org The first release candidate for GCC 4.6.3 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.3-RC-20120223 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 184520. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release

Re: backported fix to fold-const.c breaks gcc 4.6

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:48:35AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > OK, I will revert the patch immediatelly, under assumption that your > mail grants RM approval for 4.6 branch. Yes, the reversion is fine. Jakub

GCC 4.6.3 Released

The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.6.3 has been released. GCC 4.6.3 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.6.2, with over 70 bugs fixed since previous release. This release is available from the FTP servers listed at: http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.htm

Re: GCC 4.7.0

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:35:52PM +0100, Mioljub Ivanovic wrote: > GCC 4.7.0 listed, but there isn't link for download! 4.7.0 hasn't been released yet, just a release candidate - 4.7.0-rc1. The actual release will happen in a few weeks. If you want to try the release candidate, the link for it ha

Re: Partly rewriting gengtype in C++ ?

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:06:59PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 02/03/12 12:56 , Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > > >Since no other GCC part is using C++ currently, I believe this would > >be rather poor first module choice to convert to C++. If C++ was > >already a non-optional requirement, then C+

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 02:04:49PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > it would be nice to see a fixincl update for 4.6/4.7 to support > > header as a workaround for PR50916. > > That bug's not even open, pointing it out after the RC has been made > isn't going to help get it looked at for 4.7.0 T

GCC 4.4.7 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 4.4.7 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.7-RC-20120306 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 184977. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test i

Re: Why are libgcc.a and libgcc_eh.a compiled with -fvisibility=hidden?

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:24:14PM -0800, Ollie Wild wrote: > For reasons outside the scope of this discussion, we're experimenting > with statically linking libgcc.a and libgcc_eh.a into dynamically > linked applications which depend on libc but no other dynamic > libraries. To make this work, li

Re: GCC 4.7.0RC: Mangled names in cc1

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:53:52AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote: > 2012/3/9 Ludovic Courtès : > > > I believe this is not intentional, right? > > No, this is intentional. We bootstrap the compiler using the C++ > front-end now. We build stage1 with the C compiler and then build > stages 2 and 3 w

GCC 4.4.7 Released

The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.4.7 has been released. GCC 4.4.7 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.4.6. This release marks the end of the maintainance of the GCC 4.4 series. This release is available from the FTP servers listed at: http://www

GCC 4.4.7 Status Report (2012-03-13)

The GCC 4.4 branch is no longer officially maintained, GCC 4.4.7 has been the last release from the branch. The GCC 4.4 branch is now closed, please do not apply any changes to the 4.4 branch from now on.

Re: Second GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:57:51PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > I was just confused by the "please report bugs" which gives rise to > the (incorrect) assumption that the goal is to actually fix these > bugs -- only if this is possible in a timely manner, of course, and > won't delay the release

Re: fold_builtin changes tree

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:21:45AM +, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > > I'm not sure what you are folding the builtin to, but perhaps you could > > retain a reference to the function. > > > > I am folding the function call __function_size(foobar) to a new symbol > foobar@size. The reference to funct

Re: GCC 4.7.1 Status Report (2012-03-22)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:36:58PM +, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > I notice that on ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.7.0/ > > there's no gcc-core tarball. Is this still going to show up or will > it not be released anymore? They won't be provided for 4.7+, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc

Re: C++: Letting compiler know asm block can call function that can throw?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:05:29AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > In LibreOffice's ever-beloved low-level code to synthesize calls to > C++ virtual functions, I'm having the following problem (on Linux > x86_64). The function callVirtualMethod at >

Re: gcc 4.7: -march=corei7-avx bug?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:53:45AM -0300, Dâniel Fraga wrote: > I tried to compile Firefox 11 with gcc 4.7 optimized with: > > -O3 -march=corei7-avx (I have a core i7 2700k) > > But Firefox segfaults (backtrace provided, although it seems > not very useful): > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bu

Re: C++: Letting compiler know asm block can call function that can throw?

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 04:07:59PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > Motion across hardreg sets/uses are not restricted. And I would not > > > expect > > > an optimizing compiler to do that (it's your own fault to use hardregs in > > > complex C code).

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change > using C++, though the two could be bundled into one patch. In any > event, I agree that the conversion needs to provide value. Vectors > and hash tables are a good e

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > > > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change > > > using C++, though the tw

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have > two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp, and one for > gimple stmts rooted at GimpInst. > > 1) For IR browsing, >*) all the macro accesso

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:22:56AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: > >> Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have > >&

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 06:35:58PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > The standard says they need not ignore them. > > I was thinking more about iterating over the contents. What in the > current code is an indirect function call inside of a loop becomes > mostly be inline functions in a C++ iterator

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even > > ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up > > with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead > > of helpin

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:45:55AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even >

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue > that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem > to be the same people who insist on seeing significant part of GCC > converted to C++ be

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:11:48PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Lawrence Crowl writes: > > > On 4/12/12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > >> So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result > >> was exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of > >> the three things:

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 04:09:19AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > the short term desire to add color should not cloud the architectural > concerns. > I don't want to get into a situation when in 3 months someone come and > complain > that the diagnostic code is too obscure or to hard to debug,

dwz-0.1 - DWARF compression tool

Hi! I'd like to announce dwz-0.1, a DWARF compression tool I've spent this April hacking on. It is currently (see below) written as standalone tool, with minimal dependencies (though time hasn't been spent on portability yet, so assumes glibc host), in particular just a small amount of code in it

Debug info for comdat functions

Hi! Something not addressed yet in dwz and unfortunately without linker or compiler help not 100% addressable is debug info for comdat functions. Consider attached testcase with comdat foo function, seems the current linker behavior (well, tested with 2.21.53.0.1 ld.bfd) is that for DW_TAG_subpro

Re: Debug info for comdat functions

Hi! Sorry for following up to self, but something I forgot to add about this: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:16:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Something not addressed yet in dwz and unfortunately without > linker or compiler help not 100% addressable is debug info for > comdat functio

Re: dwz-0.1 - DWARF compression tool

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:49:11AM +0200, Mike Dupont wrote: > this is exciting, thanks for sharing. > > I wonder what amount of data is even the same between many libraries, Of course there is a lot of DWARF duplication in between different libraries, or binaries, or e.g. Linux kernel modules (w

Re: Debug info for comdat functions

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:43:37AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/18/2012 07:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >Consider attached testcase with comdat foo function, seems the > >current linker behavior (well, tested with 2.21.53.0.1 ld.bfd) > >is that for DW_TAG_subprog

Re: Debug info for comdat functions

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:23:35PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > DW_TAG_GNU_call_site wants to refer to the called function's DIE, so > > the function die in the separate unit needs to have its own symbol. > > Perhaps _call_site could refer to the function symbol instea

Re: dwz-0.1 - DWARF compression tool

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:36:57AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I'd like to announce dwz-0.1, a DWARF compression tool I've spent this > April hacking on. It is currently (see below) written as standalone tool, > with minimal dependencies (though time hasn't been spent

Re: Dwarf location list base address entry

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 04:37:22PM -0700, Sterling Augustine wrote: > Hi, > > Under what circumstances does gcc emit a base address selection entry > for a dwarf location list? > > I've looked at the code, and think the answer is "never", but perhaps > I'm missing something, and I want to be sure

Re: backporting PR52558 to 4.7?

On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:48:38PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On 05/31/12 15:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > >Hello gentlemen. > > > >Would it be ok to backport the fix for PR52558 into the 4.7 branch? This > >PR is the store data race patch I have been iterating with Richi. Doing > >so will avoid

dwz-0.2 release

Hi! New release of the DWARF optimizer and duplication removal utility dwz git archive --format=tar --remote=git://sourceware.org/git/dwz.git --prefix=dwz-0.2/ dwz-0.2 | bzip2 -9 > dwz-0.2.tar.bz2 is now available, compared to the 0.1 release from almost two months ago this release features a m

Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:18:23AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage" > and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you > can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage. Shouldn't w

Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:33:11PM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote: > from the others side, someone can use -frecord-gcc-switches to detect mixed > '-std=...' > after final linking and report error in such cases. I don't think -frecord-gcc-switches is useful for that, unless you always specify explicit

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Why? We don't demand a working plugin. Indeed, we disable the use of > >> the plugin if we find a linker that doesn't support it.

Re: [onlinedocs]: No more automatic rebuilt?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:18:49AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > libgomp.texi is still using gpl.texi, although libgomp has been > relicensed to GPLv3 in 2009. OK? Yes. > > * libgomp.texi: Include gpl_v3.texi instead of gpl.texi. Jakub

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:37AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > > Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the > > linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same > > command lines. I don't like that. > > Right, which is why the static configuration of the

Re: Dealing with C++98/11 ABI incompatibilities

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:01:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 07/03/2012 03:18 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > >It seems that ELF symbol versioning could be useful for this purpose. If > >we were to extend the visibility attribute to also handle symbol > >versions, that could handle a lot of issue

Re: GCC Cauldron: Notes from the C++ ABI BOF

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 02:47:37PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > We will modify g++ to support a type attribute indicating the version of > > the type, as a string. This type attribute will be inherited by any > > other type that uses it, as a c

GCC 4.7.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.2 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.2-RC-20120914 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 191287. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-linux. Please test it and report any

GCC 4.7.2 Status Report (2012-09-14), branch frozen

The GCC 4.7 branch is now frozen for creating a first release candidate of the GCC 4.7.2 release. All changes need explicit release manager approval until the final release of GCC 4.7.2 which should happen roughly one week after the release candidate if no issues show up with it. Previous Repor

Re: GCC 4.7.2 Status Report (2012-09-14), branch frozen

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > > All changes need explicit release manager approval until the final > > release of GCC 4.7.2 which should happen roughly one week after > > the release candidate if no issues show up with it. > >The backport of changes required t

GCC 4.7.2 Released

The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.7.2 has been released. GCC 4.7.2 is the first bug-fix release containing important fixes

GCC 4.7.3 Status Report (2012-09-20)

Status == The GCC 4.7.2 release tarballs have been created and were uploaded to ftp.gnu.org. The GCC 4.7 branch is thus open again for regression and documentation fixes. Quality Data Priority # Change from Last Report --- --- P

Re: Tree loop if conversion at O2

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:24:23AM +0400, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > Is there any particular reason why tree loop if conversion > (tree-if-conv.c) isn't enabled by default on O2 (as far as I can see > it's true for any platforms)? Because it doesn't make much sense without vectorization? Jaku

Re: GCC 4.7.2 Released

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:13:02PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > I got > > -rw---1 3003 3002 82884636 Sep 20 10:40 gcc-4.7.2.tar.bz2 > -rw---1 3003 3002 65 Sep 20 10:40 gcc-4.7.2.tar.bz2.sig > -rw---1 3003 3002 106514345 Sep 20 10:41 gcc-4.7.2.tar.gz

Re: How much time left till phase 3?

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:30:02AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > Finally, I've been thinking of porting asan/tsan to replace mudflap. > Dodji, you expressed interest in it recently. > > Jakub, Richi, Joseph, should we do this during the next stage 1? > I'm not sure how much mudflap is actually use

Re: Functions that are CSEable but not pure

On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > If the result is not needed, are we allowed to remove a call to this > function? No. Unless you know the same function has been already called. > So - what's wrong with usi

Re: Functions that are CSEable but not pure

On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:56:03AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > >I think the plan was for these functions not to return any value, > > No, I'm talking about the wrapper function which returns a reference > to the variable (as in my example). Sure, but I thought you want to inline the wrapper fun

<    7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   >