Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
>
>> I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
>> generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
>> Makefiles.
>>
>> I thought some of you mi
in ccHhkWiv.o
"_register_callback", referenced from:
_plugin_init in ccHhkWiv.o
"_sizetype_tab", referenced from:
__ZN12_GLOBAL__N_18afl_pass7executeEP8function in ccHhkWiv.o
"_xrealloc", referenced from:
__ZN7va_heap7reserveIP9tree_nodeEEvRP3vec
ink time.
~/afl++ $ ./afl-gcc-fast -o test-instr test-instr.c
afl-cc ++3.15a by Michal Zalewski, Laszlo Szekeres, Marc Heuse - mode:
GCC_PLUGIN-DEFAULT
error: unable to load plugin './afl-gcc-pass.so':
'dlopen(./afl-gcc-pass.so, 9): Symbol not found:
__ZN8opt_pass14set_pass_paramEjb
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>I don't think doing any of both is a good idea. Authors of the affected
>programs should adjust their makefiles instead - after all, the much more
>often reported problems are with -fstrict-aliasing, and this one also doesn't
>get any special treatment by
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 06:46:09PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Specifically, because we value reliability over speed and strict
> > standard conformance...
> Seems to me that programs that strictly meet the standard of the language
> they are written in would be more reliable than programs th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On 19 Mar 2007 19:12:35 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> similar justifications for yet another small% of slowdown have been
>> given routinely for over 5 years now. small% build up; and when they
>> build up, they don't not to be con
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
>Is that the option to compile autoconf stuff into fast running
>efficient code? :-)
>But seriously, I think we need to press autoconf
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:51:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | One could argue that issuing some type of diagnostic (either at
>> | compile time or run time) would be helpful for people that don't
>> |
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>The assert should not overflow. I suggest
>
>#include
>#include
>assert( n < SIZE_MAX / sizeof(int) );
>
>which requires two pieces of information that the programmer
>otherwise wouldn't need, SIZE_MAX and sizeof(type).
>
>Asking programmers to write ex
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>People do break Ada bootstrap because they don't configure and test Ada,
>they don't configure Ada because they complained about Ada build
>machinery being non standard, delaying Ada build machinery changes will
>only make things worse for Ada bootstrap s
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:24:20AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Not quite, Marc is suggesting that -pedantic be the default if I read
> the above statement correctly.
Yep.
Except it's probably too late for that, and there is stuff in -pedantic
that is downright obnoxious (beca
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Well as I said above, trampolines or an equivalent are currently critically
>needed by some front ends (and of course by anyone using the (very useful IMO)
>extension of nested functions in C).
This is your opinion, but I've yet to find an actual piece of
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:34PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > I have certainly seen it used, but you may well be right that it is
> > seldom used. It is certainly reasonable to consider removing this
> > extension from C and C++. Anyone using tha
The thing I did for OpenBSD 3.7 is patch the gcc-3.3.x we use:
- On OpenBSD, by default, trampoline code generation is disabled in gcc
3.3.5. Code requiring trampolines will not compile without
-ftrampolines. The warning flag -Wtrampolines can be used to locate
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>GCC's primary purpose is to be the compiler for the GNU system. It is
>used for many other purposes too, and it is good for GCC to serve more
>purposes, but they're not as important for the GNU Project, even
>though they are all important for some users.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:27:32AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> Or are you just way behind in your reading?
Way behind.
I've read the discussion, I've seen nothing looking like my argument,
so I posted my reply.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
>to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
>successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
No.
I've been playing enough with crossbu
How about replacing that piece of junk that is called libtool with
something else ?
Preferably something that works.
Between it's really poor quoting capabitilities, and the fact that
half the tests are done at configure time, and half the tests are done
at run-time, libtool is really poor engine
Sorry for chiming in after all this time, but I can't let this pass.
Scott, where on earth did you pick up your trig books ?
The mathematical functions sine and cosine are defined everywhere.
There is absolutely 0 identity involving them which doesn't apply all
over the real, or the complex plane
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/co/2005/05/r5091.pdf
> "An Open Question to Developers of Numerical Software", by
> W. Kahan and D. Zuras
Doesn't look publically accessible from my machine...
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 08:59:00PM +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Marc Espie wrote:
> >Sorry for chiming in after all this time, but I can't let this pass.
> >
> >Scott, where on earth did you pick up your trig books ?
>
> Sorry, too, but why one earth do modern t
I've got my build on OpenBSD-i386 stuck in a loop compiling
stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/usr/local/i386-unknown-openbsd3.7/bin/ -c -O2 -g
-fomit-frame-pointer -gnatpg -gnata -I- -I. -Iada
-I/spare/ports/lang/gcc/4.1/w-gcc-4.1-20050528/gcc-4.1-20050528/gcc/ada
/spare/ports/lang/gcc/4.1/w-gcc-4.1
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 05:52:11PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> (I expect Gabriel dos Rios to respond with something pithy here; please
> don't disappoint me!)
Funny, I don't expect any message from that signature.
Gabriel dos Reis, on the other hand, may have something to say...
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Samuel Smythe wrote:
>> It is well-known that Apple has been a significant provider of GCC
>> enhancements. But it is also probably now well-known that they have
>> opted to drop the PPC architecture in favor of an x86-based
>> architecture. Will Apple con
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Both OpenSSL and Apache programmers did this, in carefully reviewed
>code which was written in response to a security report. They simply
>didn't know that there is a potential problem. The reason for this
>gap in knowledge isn't quite clear to me.
Well
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Saturday 17 September 2005 17:45, you wrote:
>> That's a real misunderstanding. There are many warnings that are very
>> specialized, and if -Wall really turned on all warnings, it would be
>> essentially useless. The idea behind -Wall is that it repres
committee first. However, you should first check if modules
(C++20) affect the issue.
--
Marc Glisse
_22 used in the last assignment, I have no idea of how
to trace back to its definition on the fourth statement... Thank you
very much!
SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT
_13 = 13;
_14 = _13 + 4;
_15 = 14;
_22 = (unsigned long) _15;
_23 = _22 + _14;
--
Marc Glisse
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
Dear Marc,
Thank you very much! Just another quick question.. Can I iterate the
operands of a GIMPLE statement, like how I iterate a LLVM instruction in
the following way?
Instruction* instr;
for (size_t i=0; i< instr->getNumOperan
n possible, not so bad.
--
Marc Glisse
; expr_not_equal_to (@0, wi::minus_one (TYPE_PRECISION (type))
(mult:v{ !single_use (@3) && !single_use (@4 } (plusminus @1 @2) @0
Indeed, something more flexible than '!' would be nice, but I am not so
sure about this version. If we are going to allow inserting code after
resimplification and before validation, maybe we should go even further
and let people insert arbitrary code there...
--
Marc Glisse
those extra
checks block the transformation even for 5*X-4*X -> X which does not
increase the number of multiplications. Which is where '!' (or :v here)
comes in.
Or we could decide that the extra multiplication is not that bad if it
saves an addition, simplifies the expression, possibly gains more insn
parallelism, etc, in which case we could just drop the existing hard
single_use check...
--
Marc Glisse
ease contact the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Could you please get rid of this when posting on public mailing lists?
--
Marc Glisse
nything.
* If so, can you please point me to an example?
* Otherwise, I'd be interested in advice about providing new infrastructure to
support
this. I'm a relative noob with respect to the configury code, and I'm sure my
initial instincts will be wrong. :)
Does the i386 mm_mal
te about the exact meaning of -ftrapping-math, but
don't let that stop you.
--
Marc Glisse
-funsafe-math-optimizations is harder to tell.
--
Marc Glisse
case,
the most common being modular arithmetic: if you know that uint32_t a, b,
c, d are smaller than m (and m!=0), you can compute a*b+c+d in uint64_t,
then use div to compute that modulo m.
--
Marc Glisse
think clang follows gcc and uses the type of the first operand.
--
Marc Glisse
ed int *)c.0_1] = 1311768467463790320;
_4 = c;
Isn't that a clear violation of strict aliasing?
--
Marc Glisse
etected by sanitizers) than silently
get 'x' back.
--
Marc Glisse
0 (exps @1))
+ (mult @0 (exps (negate @1)
+
+/* Simplify x / pow (y,z) -> x * pow(y,-z). */
+(simplify
+ (rdiv @0 (POW @1 @2))
+ (mult @0 (POW @1 (negate @2
+
/* Special case, optimize logN(expN(x)) = x. */
(for logs (LOG LOG2 LOG10)
exps (EXP EXP2 EXP10)
--
Marc Glisse
never had time to finish it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03108.html
--
Marc Glisse
e a carryin argument.
--
Marc Glisse
the function is calloc().
Please help me to find the best alternative so we can implent it.
You may want to read this PR for more context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888#c27
--
Marc Glisse
way, or libstdc++ could
redefine it to some other safer form (for some reason __builtin_complex is
currently C-only).
--
Marc Glisse
td::string in gcc-5, can't you?
--
Marc Glisse
tterns (described in
fold-const.c and match.pd), like p + n < p in this case.
--
Marc Glisse
case, and there are bugs (or standard issues)
about having them in the global namespace for the first one).
--
Marc Glisse
seem to remember there are at least 2 open LWG issues on the topic,
one saying that the C++11 change didn't go far enough to match reality,
since it still documents C headers differently from the C standard, and
one saying that all overloads of abs should be declared as soon as one is
(yes, they contradict each other).
--
Marc Glisse
.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#2294
--
Marc Glisse
find docs for how
to request this, so spamming this list.
my account on gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla is "vap...@gentoo.org".
Permissions are automatic for @gcc addresses, you should create a new
account with that one (you can make it follow the old account, etc).
--
Marc Glisse
for what kinds of member functions
are allowed in an empty type.
--
Marc Glisse
your need?
--
Marc Glisse
some point, I don't
remember if it was functional, the patch is attached).
Ideally it could also be added all intrinsics that can be evaluated at compile
time, but it is harder to tell which those are.
Does gcc have a C extension we can use to set constexpr?
What for?
--
Marc GlisseIndex
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
On Sunday 27 March 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
Would it be possible to add constexpr to the intrinsics headers?
For instance _mm_set_XX and _mm_setzero intrinsics.
Already suggested here:
https
case hat helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#cvs
You can send a diff to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org to propose a patch
(possibly Cc: the fortran mailing-list if your patch is related), same as
code changes.
--
Marc Glisse
~
Apparently there is some implicit conversion rule that stops g++ from
doing the expected implicit conversions, but I can't figure out which
rule that is. The fact clang handles the code without an issue does
not help either. Any help will be appreciated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57572
--
Marc Glisse
rator+, etc), and in
others they don't (conversions in general). We have scalarish_type_p for
things that are scalars or vectors, we could add arithmeticish_type_p ;-)
(I think the name arithmetic comes directly from the standard, so we don't
want to change its meaning)
--
Marc Glisse
On Fri, 27 May 2016, martin krastev wrote:
A new arithmeticish type would take more effort, I understand. Marc,
are there plans to incorporate your patch, perhaps in an extended
form, in a release any time soon?
There is no plan either way. When someone is motivated enough (I am not
ning make install without the -s command line parameter yields
nothing. Have I done something wrong?
"nothing" is not very helpful... Surely it gave some error message.
--
Marc Glisse
itfields (sadly, the standards make it hard to avoid unsigned types...).
--
Marc Glisse
nment-check stuff is not supported by
gcc?
--
Marc Glisse
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
I was considering changing the implementation of _mm_loadu_pd in x86's
emmintrin.h to avoid a builtin. Here are 3 versions:
typedef double __m128d __attribute__ ((__vector_size_
time.
--
Marc Glisse
In the mean time, I agree that gimplifying x+1 and 1+x differently makes
little sense, you could file a PR about that.
--
Marc Glisse
s selling the transformation as a canonicalization, which is
beneficial when there is an andnot instruction, and neutral otherwise, so
it could be done always.
As pointed out by Marc in PR for -march=core2, lhs generates worse
code than rhs,
so we shouldn't do the transform if target doesn'
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 12 October 2016 at 14:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I was having a look at PR71636 and added the following pattern to match.pd:
x & ((1U << b)
dening stuff is such a pain...)
--
Marc Glisse
PR in bugzilla about that if there isn't one already. But
you'll need to provide more info there: your configure command line, the
file config.log in the 32 bit version of classpath, etc.
--
Marc Glisse
to check),
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things.
--
Marc Glisse
gimple_call_fnspec,
and refer to tree-core.h for the meaning of EAF_*, etc. A string like
"2x." means:
'2': the first letter is about the return, here we are returning the
second argument
'x': the first argument is ignored
'.': not saying anything about the second argument.
--
Marc Glisse
other
compilers assume that restrict pointers don't alias other non-derived
pointers (see several PRs in bugzilla). I believe Richard recently added
code that would make implementing the strong version of restrict easier.
Maybe that's what is missing here?
--
Marc Glisse
reasonable semantics for &+. My
recommendation would be for this to be considered a hard error.
Uh? The doc explicitly says "An input operand can be tied to an
earlyclobber operand" and goes on to explain why that is useful. It avoids
using the same register for other input when they are identical.
--
Marc Glisse
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any rea
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
I think it could have used (match_dup 0) instead of operand 1, if there
had been only the first alternative. And then the constraint would have
been +&.
isn't that explicitly listed as unsupported here
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 02-07-14 09:02, Marc Glisse wrote:
Still, the meaning of +&, in inline asm for instance, seems relatively
clear, no?
I can't find any testsuite examples using this construct.
Furthermore, I'd expect the same semantics and re
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
- libstdc++ ABI changes
It seems unlikely to be in the next release, it is too late in the cycle.
Chances to break the ABI don't come often, and rushing one at the end of
stage1 would be wasting a good opportunity.
--
Marc Glisse
ge their SONAME dependent on
the compiler version used?!
Yes, just like a move to .so.7 would entail.
--
Marc Glisse
bute to X.
Note that -Wabi-tag can tell you where it is needed.
struct __attribute__((abi_tag("marc"))) X {};
struct Y { X x; };
a.cc:2:8: warning: 'Y' does not have the "marc" abi tag that 'X' (used in
the type of 'Y::x') has [-Wabi-tag]
y missing something obvious, but a pointer would be much
appreciated.
--
Marc Glisse
0;
r = a & b;
if (a & b)
return -r;
return r;
}
Note that in this particular case, we should just return -(a&b) like llvm
does.
--
Marc Glisse
to do just fine. Is that a feature, or
should I file a PR for that... ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
--
Marc Glisse
l it "the Intel library", that doesn't mean anything.
--
Marc Glisse
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Ian Grant wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Ian Grant wrote:
And is there any way to disable the Intel library?
--disable-libcilkrts (same as the other libs)
If it explicitly doesn't support your system, I am
emory.
(If A and B don't have the same size, the argument 20 can be a hint)
--
Marc Glisse
tric]".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677
--
Marc Glisse
tion const if that works (or
provide both a const and a non-const version). Your code is not guaranteed
to work. Lambdas usually provide a fine workaround.
--
Marc Glisse
seful
for other purposes: don't introduce complicated vector/complex operations
after the corresponding lowering passes, do narrowing until a certain
point but then prefer fast integer sizes, etc (I haven't thought about
those particular examples, they are only an illustration).
--
Marc Glisse
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Is this a bug? If yes, is it known?
GCC 4.8.3 works fine though.
Not a bug, that's what inline means in C99 and later.
--
Marc Glisse
CC doesn't add the extra 16 bytes. alloca(n) with n in a2
comes out as this:
0x6490 <+12>:movi.n a8, -16
0x6492 <+14>:addi.n a3, a2, 15
0x6494 <+16>:and a3, a3, a8
0x6497 <+19>:sub a3, a1, a3
0x649a <+22>:movsp a1, a3
which just rounds up to 16 bytes.
-Marc
not such a good list for that, comp.lang.c is better suited. This
will be a good list if you have technical issues implementing the feature.
--
Marc Glisse
ption.22_is_not_given_for_-Wno-foo
--
Marc Glisse
change that)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00745.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00769.html
In this case, a subreg:V2DI of DImode should work.
--
Marc Glisse
type) i_11;
_4 = _2 + _3;
and in both cases we fail to notice that _4 = (sizetype) tmp_17; (at least
I think that's true).
So there are missing match.pd transformations in addition to whatever
scev/ivdep/other work is needed.
--
Marc Glisse
le_assign
gimple_assign
[...]
Resolving the "a[j][i] = 123" we'll need to look into later.
As Marc noted above, with that changed into "*(*(a + j) + i) = 123", we
get:
[...]
int i;
int j;
long unsigned int _1;
long unsigned int _2;
sizetype _3;
discover warnings, but gcc devs fear that users will actually
use it for real.
--
Marc Glisse
the estimated frame size on every function, -Walloca-larger-than=0 so it
is equivalent to -Walloca, etc.
--
Marc Glisse
nges make the code compile as expected:
- moving the variable declaration at the beginning of the block
- opening a block before the declaration and closing it after the return stmt.
I could not find a matching PR in bugzilla.
Do you know of any issue with this ? Maybe this has been fixed in later
versions.
Thanks,
Marc
important stuff at address 0, they also want to be able to do
arithmetic there.
--
Marc Glisse
has been
failing for a long time now, and running it for individual .sum files
fails for jit and libphobos. Other scripts in contrib/ may be relevant.
--
Marc Glisse
1 - 100 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
