Hi,
In private backend for GCC 5.2.0, we do have target-specific scheduler
(running in TARGET_SCHED_FINISH hook), that do some instruction
packing/pairing on sched2 and relies on REG_DEAD notes, that should be
correct.
But they aren't because inside haifa-sched.c, that is being run first
in the s
Simple test:
---
struct U {
unsigned s: 1;
};
struct V {
unsigned short o: 7;
unsigned short u: 1;
};
extern struct U t[];
extern struct V d[];
unsigned
foo ()
{
struct V descr = d[0];
unsigned osize = descr.o;
if ( descr.u )
{
struct U udata = t[osize];
Hi,
I am creating my own RTL pass inside private backend (GCC 5.2.0) and I
want to register it via register_pass call from override_options hook,
to not interfere with platform-independent GCC code.
register_pass (new my_cool_rtl_pass (g, "my_cool_pass"),
PASS_POS_INSERT_AFTER,
Hi,
--- sched-int.h ---
/* Information about the dependency. */
struct _dep
{
struct dep_replacement *replace;
};
typedef dep_def *dep_t;
--- sched-deps.c ---
static void
copy_dep (dep_t to, dep_t from)
{
memcpy (to, from, sizeof (*to)); // oops?
}
This might be source of doubl
at 7:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 10:06 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Inside custom backend, if I do have insn and insn2, insn can be
>> deleted when changing insn2, and also all dependencies should be
>> preserved. So I did somet
Hi,
Now LLVM and GCC essentially disagrees on simple test (minimized from
one of dejagnu tests):
#include
struct s {
unsigned long long u33: 33;
unsigned long long u40: 40;
unsigned long long u41: 41;
};
struct s a = { 0x10, 0x10, 0x10 };
int
main (void)
{
if (a.u33 * a.u3
Hi,
I have the same error while compiling complex project with private backend.
Are there some patches for this? Some advices where to dig?
Context is the following: there is foo that is external and
bar.constprop that is internal, but is in foo's comdat list. When
add_symbol_to_partitition recu
Hi,
If I want libraries to be built with -A by default and dirb to contain
libraries built with -B, I can simply write makefile fragment
MULTILIB_OPTIONS = A/B
MULTILIB_DIRNAMES= dira dirb
And inside machine description:
#define MULTILIB_DEFAULTS { "A" }
But what if I want little more
Hi,
Consider simple test:
#include
#ifdef FAILV
unsigned short* get_aa(void);
double* get_bb(void);
#else
extern unsigned short a[1024];
extern double b[1024];
#endif
unsigned short *foo()
{
size_t i;
#ifdef FAILV
unsigned short * restrict aa = get_aa();
double * restrict bb
Hi, all
Consider architecture, where *any* data register have associated flag
field. I.e. any register may be used as a data store to further use,
and as a flag keeper to further branch. Do you have any ideas how to
utilize this property in GCC machine description? May be any examples
of existing
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/23/2011 12:18 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Register may at the same time hold data and flags for branch, and live
>> range for data and for flags may be different -- they are totally
&
Hi,
This problem is backend independent, so I build reproduction in x86
backend. Consider code:
int func(int x);
int test(int x, int *data)
{
int retval;
register int *buffer asm ("eax");
buffer = data;
retval = func(x);
__asm__ __volatile__ (".internal_label _t." "4096"
Hi,
Consider code:
char A;
char B;
char sum_A_B ( void )
{
char sum = A + B;
return sum;
}
Compile it on any backend (for example x86):
gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.5.0 20100604 [gcc-4_5-branch revision 160292]
gcc -m32 -O2 -S repro.c -fdump-tree-all-lineno-details
Now look at repro.c.004t.gimple
Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 02:27:45PM +0400, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
>> Consider code:
>>
>> char A;
>> char B;
>>
>> char sum_A_B ( void )
>> {
>> char sum = A + B;
>>
>> return sum;
>> }
>> [repro.c :
Hi,
Consider minimal reproduction code:
#include "math.h"
#include "stdio.h"
double __attribute__ ((noinline))
slip(double a)
{
return (cos(a) + sin(a));
}
int main(void)
{
double a = 4.47460300787e+182;
double slipped = slip(a);
printf("slipped = %lf\n", slipped);
return 0;
}
Compil
Hi,
I agree, that this case have no practical value. It was autogenerated
between other thousands of tests and showed really strange results, so
I decided to ask. I thought, this value fits double precision range
and, according to C standard, all double-precision arithmetics must be
avaliable for
Hi,
Consider some project, consisting of files: a.c, b.c, d.c and e.c
Compiler is gcc 4.6.2
Files a.c and b.c are performance bottlenecks and requires heavy
cross-module inline, so must be compiled with -flto option
Files d.c and e.c is preffered to be compiled with lto option too, but
they are
st regards, Konstantin
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Consider some project, consisting of files: a.c, b.c, d.c and e.c
>>
>> Compiler is gcc 4.6.2
>>
Hi,
Thanks so much, this exactly solves issue. I didn't know about this
option, it seems very useful in such cases.
---
With best regards, Konstantin
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
> wrote:
>>
Hi,
I have this problem in private backend, but it is reproducible on
x86-gcc also, so I suppose core GCC probems. Lets consider simple
example:
unsigned int buffer[10];
__attribute__((noinline)) void
myFunc(unsigned int a, unsigned int b, unsigned int c)
{
unsigned int tmp;
if( a & 0x2 )
Hi,
When I am running:
gcc -Wa,--some-custom-option
everything is ok.
But when I am running:
gcc -flto -Wa,--some-custom-option
then this option is not passed to assembler, when lto wrapper calls
it. I need somehow pass this option to every assembler call, including
calls under LTO.
I am won
Hi,
Minimal reproduction for x86:
#include
#include
#include
jmp_buf something_happened;
int key_gdata = 2;
int store_data;
void __attribute__((noinline))
initiate(void)
{
longjmp(something_happened, 1);
}
int __attribute__ ((noinline))
foo(int x)
{
return x + 1;
}
int __attribute__((
Hi,
Simple code:
void somehowuse(unsigned value);
void
foo( unsigned value,
unsigned bytemask,
unsigned psw,
unsigned y)
{
unsigned x;
psw = (psw & ~(1 << 10)) | (((value >> 9) & 1) << 10);
x = (y & ~(1 << 7)) | (((value >> 9) & 1) << 7);
somehowuse(x);
somehowuse(psw);
}
Compile to assemble
Hi,
But this is awfully wrong. In the general case (value >> 2) & 0xff !=
(value >> 2) & 0x80
Take value to be 0x3ff for example. Then 0xff != 0x80 itself. This
leads to wrong result.
---
With best regards, Konstantin
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM, David Given wrote:
>
n
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM, David Given wrote:
>> Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
>> [...]
>>> x = (y & ~(1 << 7)) | (((value >> 9) & 1) << 7);
>> [...]
>>> x = y & 4294967167 | (value >> 9) << 7 & 255; &l
Hi,
In GCC 4.7.2 in function.c, inside assign_parm_find_data_types there
is distinction between passed and nominal mode.
nominal_type = TREE_TYPE (parm);
passed_type = DECL_ARG_TYPE (parm);
Next data->passed_pointer is set to true if passed_type should pass by
reference.
Consider synthetic code
Hi,
Consider simple code:
typedef struct
{
unsigned prev;
unsigned next;
} foo_t;
void
foo( unsigned x, unsigned y)
{
foo_t *ptr = (foo_t *)((void *)x);
if (y != 0)
{
ptr->prev = y;
ptr->next = x;
}
else
{
ptr->prev = 0; /* or ex
Hi,
Consider code:
int foo(char *t, char *v, int w)
{
int i;
for (i = 1; i != w; ++i)
{
int x = i << 2;
v[x + 4] = t[x + 4];
}
return 0;
}
Compile it to x86 (I used both gcc 4.7.2 and gcc 4.8.1) with options:
gcc -O2 -m32 -S test.c
You will see loop, formed like:
.L5:
leal 0(,%eax,4), %edx
Dec 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/12/13 09:30, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Consider code:
>>
>> int foo(char *t, char *v, int w)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> for (i = 1; i != w; ++i)
>> {
>> int x = i &
3 at 9:30 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Consider code:
>>
>> int foo(char *t, char *v, int w)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> for (i = 1; i != w; ++i)
>> {
>> int x = i << 2;
>> v[x + 4] = t[x + 4];
>> }
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> nothing changes if everything is unsigned and we are guaranteed to not
>> raise UB on overflow:
>>
>> unsigned foo(unsigned char *t, unsigned char *v, unsigned w)
>>
Hi,
I want to support, say arch1 and arch2 in custom gcc in the way
gcc -march1 test.c
calls
${INSTALL}/libexec/gcc/arch1/4.8.2/cc1
and
gcc -march2 test.c
calls
${INSTALL}/libexec/gcc/arch2/4.8.2/cc1
Are there any way to do it? Maybe not exactly as I outlined, but the
whole idea is clear,
Hi,
What one must use in custom backend to suppress frame pointer usage by default?
Frame pointer is mentioned in ELIMINABLE_REGS:
#define ELIMINABLE_REGS \
{ \
{ARG_POINTER_REGNUM, STACK_POINTER_REGNUM}, \
{ARG_POINTER_REGNUM, FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM}, \
{FRAME_POIN
Hi,
I am supporting custom 32-bit backend for gcc 4.6.2, and I want to
implement DI to DF conversion. Earlier it was through libgcc. Specific
of backend is, that DF may be represented as one register, but source
DI must be splitted into two SI to be used.
So overall insn pattern (actual splitting
Hi,
Sorry, mistyped. Please read `jne` instead of `je` in handwritten
"optimized" assembler.
---
With best regards, Konstantin
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Discovered this optimization possibilty on private backend, but can
> e
35 matches
Mail list logo
