an't do
with SSA temps (like for gimplifying COND_EXPRs into control-flow).
After all the gimplifier wouldn't create PHI nodes (we don't have
a CFG). The gimplifier also wouldn't set up SSA operands so this
is only about having SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT ready.
Any comment
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following tries to address the issue that with delayed folding
> and the general attempt to do folding on GIMPLE we have "unfolded"
> trees up to the point where we go into SSA (as otherwise the
> match-and-simplify mach
On December 23, 2015 9:28:32 AM GMT+01:00, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
>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;
>};
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gary Funck wrote:
>
> Currently, the default optimization level when building,
> bootstrapping GCC is -O2.
>
> We routinely build with --with-build-config='bootstrap-debug bootstrap-O3'
> because we want to verify that our UPC changes don't affect the
> compiler wh
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 08:17 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> The bug report https://golang.org/issue/13662 describes a case in
>> which ivopts appears to be breaking garbage collection for the Go
>> compiler. There is an array allocated in memory, and th
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 07:46 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>> Would it be possible to add an option -mveclibabi=glibc to cater for
>> this *for all languages*; or is this too low level (after all, the glibc
>> libmvec has code for multiple architectures). If so
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a question about __builtin_memcpy and alignment. While working on
> MIPS I noticed that this program:
>
> void foo(int *a, int *b)
> {
> __builtin_memcpy (a, b, 8);
> }
>
> Is generating the following MIPS code (allowing for any
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> See some existing PR. The GCC middle-end cannot assume that pointers
>> are aligned according to their type (while at least the C language would
>> support that notion).
>
> Only on x86. It could (and used to) do it on strict-alignment arc
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I think we only assume it if the pointer is actually dereferenced, otherwise
>> it just breaks too much code in the wild. And while memcpy dereferences,
>> it dereferences it through a char * cast, and thus only the minimum
>> alignment is
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Alan Lawrence
wrote:
> On Tues, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:59 AM, sameera
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard, we have defined the input language for convenience i
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 12:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eric Botcazou
>> wrote:
>> >> I think we only assume it if the pointer is actually dereferenced,
>> >> other
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Kugan
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am looking at implementing a ipa vrp pass. Jan Hubicka also talks
> about this in 2013 GNU Cauldron as one of the optimization he would like
> to see in gcc. So my question is, is any one implementing it. If not we
> would like to do th
On January 11, 2016 8:35:25 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> > Well, that's a hack. A solution is to design something that works
>> > generally for garbage collected languages with such requirements
>> > instead of arbitrarily limiting
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> On 14.01.2016 20:26, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 01/14/2016 12:07 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Bernd,
>>>
>>> On 13.01.2016 21:25, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
There are a few open PRs involving sel-sched, and I'd like to
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 17 January 2016 at 14:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was having a look at PR69133.
>> It appears that with -flto-partition=none,
>> cgraph_node::get_untransformed_body ()
>> is called twice for node with asm_name _ZTh
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Kugan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Another potential use of value ranges is the profile estimation.
>> http://www.lighterra.com/papers/valuerangeprop/Patterson1995-ValueRangeProp.pdf
>> It seems to me that we may want to have something that can feed sane loop
>> bounds for p
Status
==
Stage 3 has now officially ended and trunk is in regression and
documentation fixes stage now. This means any new features or
fixes for bugs that are not regressions have to wait for GCC 7 now.
Please help analyze unconfirmed bugs in the list of serious regressions
and work toward
On January 25, 2016 10:47:10 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Karcher
wrote:
>Hello gcc developers,
>
>as discussed in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11395 (and
>forwarded as PR c/69221), ghc generates non-compliant C code that is
>not
>compiled as intended on m68k. This is because its internal Cmm
On January 26, 2016 8:25:50 AM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 01/26/2016 12:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On January 25, 2016 10:47:10 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Karcher
> wrote:
>>> Hello gcc developers,
>>>
>>> as discussed in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/gh
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> Hi Richard!
>
> On 01/26/2016 08:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I developed a gcc patch that does not change the code generation for
>>> conforming programs but fixes this non-conforming use-ca
On January 26, 2016 8:03:35 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Karcher
wrote:
>On 26.01.2016 16:40, Richard Biener wrote:
>> No, the patch looks somewhat broken to me. A complete fix would
>replace
>> the target macro FUNCTION_VALUE implementation by implementing the
>> function_val
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Michael Karcher
wrote:
> On 26.01.2016 21:47, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> So, hookize and change to
>>>>
>>>> if (outgoing && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (func
>>>> ...
>&
first?)
>
> Conclusion: IMHO, If ghc fetches the return value from the wrong register,
> then ghc is broken, not gcc.
We are trying to support
t.c
---
void *foo();
int bar()
{
return ((int (*)())foo) ();
}
t2.c
-
int foo () { return 0; }
thus doing a direct call to a function with a
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 04:17 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> We are trying to support
>>
>> t.c
>> ---
>> void *foo();
>>
>> int bar()
>> {
>> return ((int (*)())foo) ();
>> }
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 11 November 2015 at 19:04, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 November 2015 at 16:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Prathamesh
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> To workaround this, I defined a new hook expand_divmod_libfunc, which
> >> targets must override for expanding call to target-specific dimovd.
&g
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Carlos Pita wrote:
> PS 2 (last one, I swear): I've isolated what I think is the root of
> the problem. When einline expands g, there is plenty of call sites for
> f.call, so the full redundancy elimination pass replaces sum for
> f.call, making things easy for the
rly inlining is not supposed to catch this case
but IPA inlining.
it shouldn't need to inline g early to end up inlining the calls to sq. IPA CP
should clone g for the case of it calling sq and then inlining should
just do its job.
Richard.
> Cheers
> --
> Carlos
>
> On Fri
On February 5, 2016 3:27:17 PM GMT+01:00, Carlos Pita
wrote:
>> I was saying that early inlining is not supposed to catch this case
>> but IPA inlining.
>> it shouldn't need to inline g early to end up inlining the calls to
>sq. IPA CP
>> should clone g for the case of it calling sq and then inl
On February 11, 2016 6:39:02 PM GMT+01:00, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Is there any implementation for replacing all uses of a variable with
>another variable in gimple?
>
>If I want to replace the uses of a variable with another one, do I
>have to do this by hand, investigate
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This is motivated by MELT, but I believe it would be useful to every GCC
> plugin which tries to be
> compilable both for GCC 5 & GCC 6.
>
> The technical issue described in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00149.
On February 12, 2016 3:55:33 PM GMT+01:00, Mikhail Maltsev
wrote:
>
>On 02/12/2016 04:38 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Sorry, no. The plugin API was never considered stable and thus
>plugins have to
>> deal with incompatibilites as they arise.
>>
>>
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Dear all
>
> In https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00157.html
>
> Richard Biener (richard dot guenther at gmail dot com) is mentioning:
>
>> Help with picking up the partially completed work on a stable
Hi,
the following patch switches download_prerequesites to use ISL 0.16.1
(just put that into infrastructure/).
I've verified it works for me (on the gcc-5 branch and trunk).
Ok?
Thanks,
Richard.
Index: contrib/download_prerequisites
===
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Kugan
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> >> Another potential use of value ranges is the profile estimation.
>>> >> http://www.lighterra.com/papers/valuerang
On February 15, 2016 4:34:48 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> >What do you think about refactoring iterators in GCC 7?
>>
>> I think refactoring towards STL style iterators would be welcome. It
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I inserted a new local var decl in gimple, a pointer which is
> malloc'ed and now I am trying to read/write in that memory.
>
> int *mumu;
> mumu = malloc ( 40 * sizeof (int));
> mumu[1] = 10;
>
> The following state
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Wink Saville wrote:
> You've convinced me that this isn't a bug, but I assume you'd agree
> its weird at best. I tested it with clang and it works as I'd expect:
>
> $ make
> clang -x c -m64 -O3 -Wall -o test.o -c test.c
> objdump -d test.o > test.txt
> clang -m64
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Phil Ruffwind wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am trying to analyze the optimized results of following code. The
> intent is to unpack a 64-bit integer into a struct containing eight
> 8-bit integers. The optimized result was very promising at first, but
> I then discov
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Phil Ruffwind wrote:
> I tried to look for a workaround for this. It seemed that using a
> union instead of memcpy was enough to convince GCC to optimize into a
> single "mov".
>
> struct alpha unpack(uint64_t x)
> {
> union {
> struct
I remember when fixing bugs that it was pointed out how
the standard
does not say those types promote. Of course those types don't exist in the
standard.
Richard.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 12:37 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Wink Saville
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Wink Saville wrote:
> What is the process for a patch with a new option to allow a different
> behavior?
Write one (with testcases), test it and then post it here for review.
Richard.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> As discussed in private mail, this version of patch attempts to
> increase alignment
> of global struct decl if it contains an an array field(s) and array's
> offset is a multiple of the alignment of vector type corresponding to
> it'
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Dmytro Sheyko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am compiling code like this:
>
> int test(int x, int eq, int lt, int gt) {
> return x < 2000 ? lt : x > 2000 ? gt : eq;
> }
>
> and expect that compiler would generate one CMP instruction for both
> comparisons:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 22 February 2016 at 17:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> As discussed in private mail, this version of patch attempts to
> >> inc
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
> optimizations that may turn data dependencies of pointers into control
> dependencies. I'm thinking about all optimizations or transformations
> that guess that a po
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
>> >
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Marcos Diaz
wrote:
> Hi, we are facing the same issue. This bugzilla was opened:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
>
> We were thinking on making a function attribute that ensures that non
> necessary registers, or stack frames used by the func
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2
On March 4, 2016 3:48:21 PM GMT+01:00, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
>On 04/03/16 14:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> On 04/03/16 11:59, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:51:24AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
So I'm trying to create a define_insn to match something like:
On March 6, 2016 3:45:37 PM GMT+01:00, Diego Novillo
wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On stackoverflow
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21660563/can-gcc-compile-gimple,
>> they said GIMPLE FE project is dead. Please let me know if I can work
>> on
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 6 March 2016 at 21:13, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> I'll be willing to mentor this. Though I'd rather have us starting from
>> scratch and look at having a C-like input language, even piggy-back
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> A recent patch has broken bootstrapping (s390x) in stage3. The
> failure creeped into trunk between friday and today:
>
> -- snip --
> g++ -std=gnu++98 -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -W
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:00:03PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> > A recent patch has broken bootstrapping (s390x) in stage3. The
>> > failure creeped in
On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez"
wrote:
>On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> ...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the input
>>> format to a test framework - which leads naturally to the idea of a
>>> gimple frontend.
>>
>> Assuming you mean
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 11:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So for testing specific passes, I'd much rather have an input format
>>> for testing individual passes that:
>>>* can be easily generated by GCC from real test cases
>>>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>> About using the LLVM IR - similar issue I think, plus it is probably
>> too far away
>> from GCC so that what we'll end up will only look like LL
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> This way, implementing a library that supports dealing with GIMPLE
>>> becomes much simpler. This provides a nice fo
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>> This way, imp
Status
==
GCC trunk is still in regression and documentation fixes stage.
We're now half-way through our usual period of shaking out regressions
before a new release which would be released mid April if we can trust
past years experience.
The number of serious regressions has decreased sign
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
>
> calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>
> Shouldn't it call
>
> free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
>
> after it is done like other places where calculate_dominance_info is used?
Only if it inva
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> convert_scalars_to_vector in i386.c calls
>>>
>>> calculate_dominance_info (CDI
On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek
>wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:43:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
Since convert_sc
Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/10/2016 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On March 10, 2016 6:02:58 PM GMT+01:00, "H.J. Lu"
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>&g
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> On 03/10/2016 08:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:50 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Richard B
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:50 AM, H.J. Lu
On March 14, 2016 4:31:57 PM GMT+01:00, Andrey Tarasevich
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have a source file with 700k lines of code 99% of which are printf()
>statements. Compiling this test case crashes GCC 5.3.0 with
>segmentation fault.
>Can such test case be considered valid or source files of size 35 MB
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Then I'd like to be able to re-construct SSA without jumping through
>> hoops (usually you can get close but if you require copies propagated in
>> a
= (PB*)(ptr-8);
>>return t;
>> }
>>
>> Does this volatile C99 standard rule
>> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf):
>>
>>6.5.16 Assignment operators
>>
>>"3. ... The side effect of updating the stored value o
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 15 March 2016 at 20:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>> The
On March 22, 2016 2:07:10 AM GMT+01:00, NightStrike
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
>
>Would anyone mind backporting these two dependent bug fixes to 4.9?
Both are not regressions there so no appropriate at this stage
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/21/2016 11:16 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 11:13 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/21/2016 11:15 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> I'll resist the urge for now to apply RAII principles in this
> code,
#x27;d think you'd want to change the duping of this some to make it easier
> to tell from struct.some.member.
it's just the way we name clones, yes. Similar for the parameter name btw.
>> Please correct me if I am wrong. Also point out if I am missing anything
>
> I th
;>
>>> *openmp functions like
>>> main._omp_fn.0 (void * .omp_data_i)
>>
>> I'd think you'd want to change the duping of this some to make it easier
>> to tell from struct.some.member.
>>
>>> Please correct me if I am wrong. A
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 22 March 2016 at 16:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> How exactly can we achieve start stop compilation on spec
stcases manually.
I realize that the student application deadline is tomorrow.
Richard.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Prasad Ghangal
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22 March 2016 at 19:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrot
On March 24, 2016 6:30:29 PM GMT+01:00, David Malcolm
wrote:
>On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 14:31 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I have attached my gsoc proposal, please review it.
On March 28, 2016 7:23:26 PM GMT+02:00, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>In order to compute all the statements where a variable is used, is it
>enough to rely on the SSA analysis? I tried to do something like this:
>
>FOR_EACH_LOCAL_DECL (cfun, i, var) {
>for (unsigned int
On April 5, 2016 5:03:54 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 04/05/2016 08:59 AM, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On March 28, 2016 7:23:26 PM GMT+02:00, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana
> wrote:
>&g
On April 6, 2016 8:21:35 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bin.Cheng
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Function if_convertible_phi_p has below check on virtual PHI nodes:
>>
>>
>> if (any_mask_load_store)
>> return true;
>>
>> /* When there were no if-convertible stores,
On April 8, 2016 8:10:16 PM GMT+02:00, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I ran into a couple of aliasing issues with a project I'm working on,
>and have some questions.
>
>The first is an issue with TOC-relative addresses on PowerPC. These
>are
>symbolic addresses that are to be loaded from a fixed sl
On April 8, 2016 4:55:59 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On April 6, 2016 8:21:35 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
> wrote:
>>>On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bin.Cheng
>>>wrote:
>&g
On April 12, 2016 5:11:45 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>On 04/11/2016 05:30 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> Either way, when we split to
>> set (reg tmp) (high (const (minus ((symbol_ref) (reg 2)
>> .. mem (lo_sum (reg tmp) (const (minus ((symbol_ref) (reg 2)
>> both high and
On April 12, 2016 3:47:19 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>Hi,
>How to check if two symbols are from same source file during WPA ?
>Is symbol1->lto_file_data == symbol2->lto_file_data true if symbol1
>and symbol2 are from same
>source files ? Would that be a sufficient condition or do I
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 12 April 2016 at 22:41, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On April 12, 2016 3:47:19 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>How to check if two symbols are from same source file during WPA ?
> &g
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We got 18 slots from Google.
>
> It is less than we expected so not everyone is going to be satisfied by
> the split below.
>
> We have time until next week (deadline April 20, 2016 at 20:59 CEST)
> to assign mentors to each proje
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14 April 2016 at 13:56, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 April 2016 at 22:41, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On April 12, 2016 3:47:19 PM GMT+02:00
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
> >
> > What happens in practice? GCC doesn't put functions in random
> > partitions.
> >
>
> The data goes into a separate partition AFAIU - it means that all data
> accesses are as though they are extern references which means there's
> n
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> So in the immediate term, if we drop the problem 65248 patch, we're back in
>> a state where the DSO and the executable can have two different views of
>> certain objects. In which case we r
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-04-10 3:34 GMT+03:00 David Guillen Fandos :
>> On 07/04/16 09:09, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-04-07 0:49 GMT+03:00 David Guillen Fandos :
Thanks a lot Ilya!
I managed to get it working. There were some bugs regardin
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> To summarize: there is cur
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 April 2016 at 03:41, lh_mouse wrote:
>> See this example: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/048b4aa5046da11b
>>
>> In this example the function is called recursively.
>
> See the original email you replied to:
>
> "I understand if
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> building gcc6 using musl based gcc6 fails with symbol poisoning error
> (details at the end of the mail).
>
> the root cause is c++: c++ headers include random libc headers with
> _GNU_SOURCE ftm so all sorts of unexpected symbols are defined
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The function internal_reference_types appears to have been introduced
>> exclusively for the Ada frontend. It is responsible for PR70759 (ada
>> rts doesn't build with -mabi=ilp32). What purpose does it serve and
>> what breaks when it is
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> What (Ada!) targets would it make a difference on? As it affects TYPE_SIZE
>> it also affects layout (obviously), so I wonder how this can be an
>> optimization (I assume it was intended to be one - likely for Adas fat
>> pointer represent
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> As part of the work I've done on inline asm, I've been looking thru the bugs
> for it. There appear to be a number that have been fixed or overtaken by
> events over the years, but the bug is still open.
>
> Is closing some of these old bug
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It is currently difficult to debug offloading compiler invocations.
> These are actually lto1 front ends invoked from the target compilation's
> collect2 process, via the respective offloading toolchain's mkoffload.
> To the best of
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Aaron Sawdey
wrote:
> So, my first cut at the function to select reassociation width for
> power was modeled after what I saw i386 and aarch64 doing, which is to
> return something based on the number of that kind of op we can do at
> the same time:
>
> static int
>
201 - 300 of 2616 matches
Mail list logo
