On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2014-03-04 14:14 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener :
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >
> >> 2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener :
> >> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In an attempt to test some optimization I destroyed the loop property in
> pass_tree_loop_done and reinstated it in pass_rtl_loop_init, however then I
> noticed that pass_dominator started generating wrong code.
> My guess is that
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
> I am a bit confused (or unhappy) about the current_pass variable
> (in GCC 4.9 svn rev.208447); I believe we have some incoherency about it.
>
> It is generally (as it used to be in previous versions of GCC)
> a global
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
> regarding the following points:
>
> a) Pattern matching: Currently, gimple_match_and_simplify() matches
> patterns one-by-one. Could we use a decision tre
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > How do you handle a
> > > transformation that currently tries to recursively fold something else and
> > > does the main transformation only if that simplified?
> >
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How do you handle a
> > > > >
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
>> regarding the following points:
>>
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Paulo Matos
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 11 March 2014 10:52
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: dom requires PROP_lo
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
>> Matos
>> Sent: 13 March 2014 11:21
>> To: Richard Biener
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
On March 13, 2014 5:00:53 PM CET, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 13 March 2014 13:24
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: dom requires PROP_loops
>>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In gcc/c/c-parser.c:c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads (as well as other,
> similar functions), what is the point of setting the boolean tree c's
> location, given that this tree won't be used in the following?
>
> /* Attemp
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> the strings in the ".debug_str" section are output
> in an arbitrary order. Could this be changed?
>
> The function 'output_indirect_strings' in 'gcc/dwarf2out.c'
> uses htab_traverse which then outputs the string in the
> orde
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
Indeed - I have committed the fix.
Thanks,
Richard.
> This caused segfault for patterns when "simplification" operand was
> only c_expr (p
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Hariharan Sandanagobalane
wrote:
> Hello,
> This question is similar to one raised by bingfeng here
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00241.html
>
> In our private port based on GCC 4.8.1, i want to define a builtin function
> for multiply and accumulate. Th
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Martin Uecker
wrote:
> Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:44:53 +0100
> schrieb Richard Biener :
>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi list,
>> >
>> > the strings in the ".d
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it
> gets rejected and anyone interested can simply download the document from
> the wiki..]
>
> Over the past couple of months, I've slowly been putting together an act
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello,
>I've been compiling Chromium with LTO and I noticed that WPA stream_out
> forks and do parallel:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02621.html.
>
> I am unable to fit in 16GB memory: ld uses about 8GB and lto1 about 6GB
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello,
>>I've been compiling Chromium with LTO and I noticed that WPA stream_out
>> forks and do parallel:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it
>>> gets reje
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
&g
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm thinking of the right way of adding some loop related pragmas to GCC.
> An example:
>
> #pragma loop unroll = 2
> for (i = 0; i < n; i ++)
> {
> Whatever...
> }
>
> Here I want
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Look at how we implement #pragma ivdep (see replace_loop_annotate ()
>> and fortran/trans-stmt.c where it builds ANNOTATE_EXPR).
>
> Note that the C and C++ front-ends also support it.
>
> We are planning to submit a patch to add more loop
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 03/31/2014 06:25 AM, Vladimir Kargov wrote:
>>
>> On 27 March 2014 18:39, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
>>>
>>> The domain is computed on basis of the information provided by
>>> number_of_latch_execution that returns the tree expression
>>>
>>
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/27/2014 10:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Previous patch is wrong, I did a mistake in name ;)
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 03/27/2014 09:52 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Balajiganapathi S
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are doing a project which requires us to write a new pass to recalculate
> the chain of recurrences and use them. We would like to do this as an ipa
> pass plugin. For now we have got it working as a GIMPLE pass. When we try to
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2014 11:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>&
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 10:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Firefox:
cgraph.c:869 (cgraph_create_edge_1) 0: 0.0%
0: 0.0% 130358176: 6.9% 0: 0.0%1253444
cgraph.c:510 (cgraph_allocate_node)
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> AFAIK we settled on a simpler one dropping columns at stream-out time
>> that also helped.
>>
>> As for the correct way to do the optimization we agreed(?) that streaming
>> the locations elsewhere and using references to them is more appropria
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> For a "quick" GCC implementation of the builtins you could expand
>> them to a open-coded sequence during gimplification. B
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM, wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 16, 2014, at 12:42 AM, "Joey Ye" wrote:
>>
>> Ran into a fragile test case:
>> FAIL: g+.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-union5.C -std=c+11 scan-assembler 7
>>
>> $ cat nsdmi-union5.C
>> // PR c++/58701
>> // { dg-require-effective-target c++11 }
>> // { dg-f
On April 16, 2014 7:45:55 PM CEST, Peter Schneider wrote:
>In order to see what difference a different processor makes I also
>tried
>the same code on a fairly old 32 bit "AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3000+" with the
>
>current stable gcc (4.7.2). The difference is even more striking
>(dereferencing is muc
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> 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
>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> As part of our effort to make programming in GCC easier, we would like
> to improve the interface to bitmaps.
>
> There are three bitmap types, each with disparate operations and
> function names. This disparity causes problems
> * when cha
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> This is great progress.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>
>> If I understand the experiments, your implementtion has very small
>> cost to perform the analysis, at least for the SPEC benchmarks you are
>> testing. Have you connected the
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2012-10-11 16:25 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/12, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2012-10-11 13:26 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
My only other concern was that the mapping between those function
names and the tasks to
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Pinski wrote, On Friday 12 October 2012 10:29 AM:
>
>
>>> Here's an example:
>>>
>>> main()
>>> {
>>> int **p;
>>> int *a, *d;
>>> int w, x;
>>>
>>> a = &w;
>>> f1(a);
>>> p =
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
>
>
> Richard Biener wrote, On Friday 12 October 2012 02:51 PM:
>
>>
>> we _always_ see
>>
>>ssa_name_1 = a;
>>use (ssa_name_1);
>>
>> so you have a place to associate your flow-
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2012-10-12 04:26 , Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> What's the issue with always returning the changed status? bitmap
>> operations
>> (even more so sbitmap operations) are memory-bound, accumulating one more
&g
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added -fopt-info option in r191883. This option allows one to
> quickly see high-level optimization info instead of scanning several
> verbose dump files.
>
> However, -fopt-info implementation is not complete as it dumps
> info f
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:21:29AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a solicitation for help in converting passes to use the new
>> dump infrastructure. More context below.
>
> thanks for the email. I hoped you'd summ
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> A more simpler use model is not to guard the dump statement at all --
> just express the intention a) what to dump; b) as what kind or to
> where
>
>
> 1) I want to dump the something as optimized message:
>
> dump_printf (MSG_OPTIMIZED
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> I don't like B), it is unlike everything else a pass does. You seem to
>> use the new field to indicate a group - that makes it a flat hierarchy
>> which might make it limiting (for example 'vect' may include both loop
>> and scalar vector
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> While coding (in MELT)
> https://github.com/bstarynk/melt-examples/tree/master/ex06
> (which is essentially a MELT extension using the MELT 0.9.7 plugin from
> http://gcc-melt.org/ )
> I noticed that the char_type_n
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> A more simpler use model is not to guard the dump statement at all --
>>>
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm coding in MELT the ex06/ of https://github.com/bstarynk/melt-examples/
> which should typecheck calls to variadic functions json_pack & json_unpack
> from http://www.digip.org/jansson (a JSON library in C).
>
> I'm worki
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>>
>> I think the bug is in the documentation, and that
>> TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION should accept an IDENTIFIER_NODE.
>>
>> Ian
>
> I will be reporting this with bugzilla then.
Can you instead produce a patch?
> Thanks for the clarification,
>
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:26:58AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
>> wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > I'm coding in MELT the ex0
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> You still have the issue that // regular stuff may appear to possibly
>> clobber any_dump_enabled_p and thus repeated any_dump_enabled_p
>> checks are not optimized by the compiler (we don't have predicated
>> value-numbering (yet)).
>
>> S
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Zhenqiang Chen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PRE bases on the result of value numbering (run_scc_vn). At the end,
> it free_scc_vn. But before free_scc_vn, it might call cleanup_tree_cfg
> ();
>
> if (do_eh_cleanup || do_ab_cleanup)
> cleanup_tree_cfg ();
>
> cleanup_tree
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Could we make bugzilla recognize all the email addresses in the MAINTAINERs
> file? It is frustrating to identify the maintainer of the piece that's
> broken, only to find that bugzilla will refuse to add the person the the CC
> list. This
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Zhenqiang Chen
wrote:
> On 23 October 2012 18:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Zhenqiang Chen
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> PRE bases on the result of value numbering (run_scc_vn). At the end,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> is this known? should I report a bug? any ideas on fixing it, I might
>> be able to do so, it should be simple.
>
> I think the fix should be to give an early error message for compiling
> from
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> jakub,
>
> i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
> I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
> badly. my house is hooked up to a small generator, and no one has any power
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>> jakub,
>>>
>>> i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
>>>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon.
Reminds me of the stable
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> whoever a few days ago or so broke this test, can please either fix the
> testcase, the compiler or just xfail for now the testcase itself, to avoid
> everybody the waste of time?
>
> If you want me to do go ahead with option 3 above,
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>> I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
>> there is code from the rtl level that was written twice, once for the
>> case when the size of the mode is less than the size of a HWI and
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 03:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>
>>> This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
>>> behave differently. However, I want to know if differently m
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> I believe the following components in sese.[hc] are completely unused.
>
> phis -- functions declared extern in sese.h but never defined
>
> extern void insert_loop_close_phis (htab_t, loop_p);
> extern void insert_guard_phis (basic_bloc
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:31:27 -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>
>> Richi, ping?
>
> Just guessing... isn't he simply out on Honeymoon?
>
> Those functions were introduced to handle alias sets for spill slots
> better, but IIRC this never worke
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 01:18 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>
>> I have found that tree-flow.h implements iteration over htab_t,
>> while there is no current facility to do that with hash_table.
>> Unfortunately, the specific form does not match the stan
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
>
> It is sometimes hard to remember which printing function is used
> for debugging a type, or even which type you have.
>
> We propose to rely on overloading to unify the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Richard Kenner
> wrote:
>>> It's just that an increasing number of mail agents are configured by
>>> default to send rich-text.
>>
>> And people who know enough about computing to work on compilers don't kno
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> 2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
>> is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
>> our policy.
>
>
> Surely there are altenrative email client for Android that have plain
> t
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 11/24/2012 12:59 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>>
2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>>>
>>> Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
>>> deserving of a bump to 5.0.
>>
>>
>> I see no reason why an internal design change that has no u
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> As we continue adding new C++ features in the compiler, gengtype
> is becoming an increasing source of pain. In this proposal, we
> want to explore different approaches to GC that we could
> implement.
>
> At this point, we are trying to rea
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>> I'd say the most pragmatic solution is to stick with gengtype but
>> make it more dependent on annotations (thus, explicit). That is,
>
> Yes.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting Richard Biener :
>
>> That said, filtering any non text/plain mail into spam keeps me off most
>> spam. Thus be warned when you try to get patches in non text/plain
>> sent to me ;)
>
>
> Shoul
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting Richard Biener :
>
>> (though doesn't save much space). One file per mail is then convenient
>> for
>> review anyway.
>
>
> That would be 84 mails then just for the added files.
> And if th
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>>>
>>>> I would like you t
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> In graphds.h, struct graph has a field "htab_t indices".
> As near as I can tell, it is completely unused. It builds
> and tests fine with the field #if'd out.
>
> Shall I remove the field?
Sure. Please make sure to have graphite enabled
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 11/23/12, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 11/22/2012 01:18 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > I have found that tree-flow.h implements iteration over htab_t,
>> > while there is no current facility to do that with hash_table.
>> > Unfortunately,
Look at how we for example
compute TREE_INT_CST + 1 - int_cst_binop internally uses double_ints
for the computation and then instantiates a new tree for holding the result.
Now we'd use wide_ints for this requring totally unnecessary copying.
Why not in the first place try to avoid that. And tr
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>> Just to add another case which seems to be not covered in the thread.
>> When dumping from inside a gdb session in many cases I cut&paste
>> addres
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/27/2012 03:51 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* Start implementing memory pools for data structures that do not need
>>>
>>> to be in PCH images. It is still not clear what types
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:30:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
>> using a GC leads to easier maintainable code. The fact
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Alexey Kravets wrote:
> Hello,
> I am looking for a way to implement source annotation (or something
> similar) for a for loops. Basically, I need some mechanism to mark
> certain for loops in the source code for the GIMPLE optimization
> passes (for C/C++ only cur
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if the next release of GCC will support the openACC
> directives. At the moment only commercial compilers support the openACC
> standard.
No, it won't.
Richard.
> Thank you
> Salvatore
>
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'd
>> like to disable loop peeling on ARM targets.
>>
>> I have ran benchmarks on cortex-A9 (hard-float) and noticed
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While trying to bootstrap with GCAC checking enabled and some
> instrumentation to measure how often objects are being marked, I
> noticed that a lot of cache misses happen because already-marked
> objects are being tested again
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 10 December 2012 10:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>&g
roduces dump_enabled_p () without argument, and leave the clean up
>>> of vectorizer code as a separate one. Do this earlier so that other
>>> contributors have time to cleanup the dumps. Please also resend to the
>>> email list to summarize the new standard way of debug/msg dump.
>>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The new dump infrastructure was committed shortly before the tru
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Hubicka writes:
>
>> Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string
>> operations
>> it fares well with unalignes accesses.
>
> Nehalem and later has very fast unaligned vector loads. There's still some
> penalty
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 11/12/12 09:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jan Hubicka writes:
>>>
>>>> Note that I think Core has similar charact
that we want to require C++04 or how it was
called).
Installed. Suggestions for incremental improvements (including
actually verifying the requirements) welcome.
At least this fixes this P1 bug for me.
Thanks,
Richard.
2012-12-11 Richard Biener
PR other/54324
* doc
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> some IPA passes do have on-the side vectors with their information
>> about each cgraph node or edge and those are independent GC roots.
>> Not all, but many (e.g. inline_summary_vec
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>> i386.c has
>>
>>{
>> /* When not optimize for size, enable vzeroupper optimization for
>> TARGET_AVX with -fexpensive-optimizations and split 32-byte
>> AVX unaligned load/store. */
>
> This
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>>> Seriously..
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
>>
>> ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
>> are already hal
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino wrote:
>> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
>> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
>> listed on your reference. He also
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Michael Zolotukhin
wrote:
> Hi,
> I found quite an old bug PR34768 and was thinking of doing what was
> suggested there.
> Particularly, I was wondering about adding new subcodes to gimple and
> rtl for describing operations with rounding.
>
> Currently, I think t
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still
>> in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to
>> support the i386. As Steven Bossche
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 10:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 04:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Exposing known rounding modes as new operation codes may sound like
>> a good idea (well, I went a similar way with trying to make operations with
>> undefined over
1701 - 1800 of 2616 matches
Mail list logo
