On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Hi Rainer,
>>
>> On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>>> FX writes:
>>>
>>>> 10-days ping
>>>> This r
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>> Hi Rainer,
>>>
>>> On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>>
>
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, FX wrote:
>> The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
>> the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB -fPIC
>> _won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
>> This means that the PIC library is being built
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 01:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Apart from what Joseph already said using 'sizetype' in the middle-end
>> for sizes and offsets is really really deep-rooted into the compiler.
>> W
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we've noticed the following behavior of the GCC vector extension, and were
> wondering whether this is actually intentional:
>
> When you use binary operators on two vectors, GCC will accept not only
> operands
> that use the sa
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > So at the very least, we should bring the documentation in line with the
>> > actual behavior. However, as seen above, that
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > However, if we make that change, there will be some cases that regress: the
>> > problem is that an expression "x + y&
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Roger Ferrer Ibáñez
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm observing a weird behaviour in PowerPC64 Little Endian that does
> not seem to occur on other architectures supporting __int128. The
> following code, when compiled with -O1 generates wrong output.
>
> -- test.c
> #include
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
> The following fig (1) shows an implementation of the SSQ kernel from the BLAS
> Library in ATLAS.
> Fig(2) shows the conversions of the IF-THEN-ELSE in Fig(1) to vectorized
> code. Normally in the automatic vectorization the IF-THEN-E
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Android native GCC can't support LTO because of a lack of support for
> dlopen() in the C library. How should we patch the configury to disable
> LTO by default?
How does LTO need dlopen? It seems it only cannot use the linker plugin
in whi
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 10:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Android native GCC can't support LTO because of a lack of support for
>>> dlopen() in the C library. H
On January 11, 2015 5:25:23 AM CET, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>I was thinking of some of the opportunities with respect to reducing
>spills inside the Loop. If the Live range(allocno)
>spans through the Loop and Live out at the exit of the Loop and there
>are no references or not being touched
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:05 PM
> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; vmaka...@redhat.com; l...@redhat.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
&
I'd simply remove it....
Richard.
> Thank you,
> Prathamesh
>
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild,
Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan wrote:
> > On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kul
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> I have some code where we generate some weird code that has stores
> followed by a load from the same location.
> For an example we get:
> add x14, sp, 240
> add x15, sp, 232
> str x14, [sp, 136]
> mov w2, w27
> ldr w1, [sp, 136]
> st
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> The "Options That Control Optimization" section of the manual is
> currently divided into three parts (not subsections, just separate option
> lists):
>
> (1) General options like -O[n]
>
> (2) Options that individually control options en
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> 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()
> {
>
Status
==
The trunk is now in "Stage 4" which means it is open for regression
and documentation fixes only, like if it were a release branch.
Please concentrate on getting P1 bugs fixed and provide help in
confirming and analyzing UNCONFIRMED bugs. For non-primary,
non-secondary targets imp
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Ricardo Telichevesky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a strange problem with extremely large procedures when generating
> 64-bit code
> I am using gcc 4.9.2 on RHEL6.3 on a 64-thread 4-socket Xeon E7 4820 with
> 256GB of memory. No avx extensions, using sse option whe
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/17/15 07:34, Gary Funck wrote:
>>
>> On 01/14/15 23:15:59, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I think just starting with the list & creating the buckets
>>> with the list. Then post here and we'll iterate and try to nail that
>>> down
>>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jorge Bellón Castro
wrote:
> Good day,
> I'm working with exceptions thrown by a signal handler using
> -fnon-call-exceptions flag with g++ for x86_64.
>
> The problem I am facing is that the behavior of this mechanism is not
> consistent if we change some optimiz
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
>
> is a LTO bug where stage 1 and stage 2 compilers generate
> different LTO IR. Is there a way to dump LTO IR to see the
> actual difference in LTO IR?
No. I've had multiple incarnations of l
will need to backport this
thus any user will need to do functional testing to see whether his
compiler implements the new or old semantics?
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild,
Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > > I would like to apply the following patch:
> > >
> > > [PATCH] S/390: -mhotpatch v2
> > &g
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:12:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Andreas Kreb
On January 29, 2015 6:25:35 PM CET, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:19:45PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> consider attached patch, which adds pass_lim after fre1 (a
>simplification of
>> my oacc kernels patch series).
>>
>> The included testcase lim-before-stdarg.c fails.
>>
>>
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 29-01-15 18:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> The stdarg pass can't grok too heavy optimizations, so if at all possible,
>> don't schedule such passes early, and if you for some reason do, avoid
>> optimizing in there the va_list related acce
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ was: Re: pass_stdarg problem when run after pass_lim ]
>
> On 03-02-15 14:36, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, that fix breaks the va_list_gpr/fpr_size optimization, so
>>> I've
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 10-02-15 11:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> The single failing testcase (both with and without -m32) is
>>> >g++.dg/torture/pr45843.C:
>>> >...
>>> >./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12-02-15 14:57, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
My idea was to not generate temporaries and hence copies for
non-scalar types, but rather construct the "result" of va_arg directly
>
On February 13, 2015 10:40:17 PM CET, Tom de Vries
wrote:
>On 13-02-15 09:57, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> [ We're still expanding ifn_va_arg before the va_list_gpr/fpr_size
>>> >optimization. ]
>> Yeah, and the point of the exercise was of course to change
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I can see the IF-combining (If-merging) pass of optimization on tree-ssa form
> of intermediate representation.
> The IF-combine or merging takes of merging the IF-THEN-ELSE if the condition
> Expr found be congruent or
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:42 PM
> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Vinod Kathail; Shail Adi
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:49 PM
> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 02/23/15 11:38, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> (I wonder if convert_mult_to_fma is something that should move to
>>> match-and-simplify infrastructure.)
>>
>> Yea, it probably should.
>
>
> Currentl
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 12:14 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> These concerns are correct. Btw, as an answer to Steve - within
>> -funsafe-math-optimizations FMA_EXPR basically can be either
>> fused or not fused (but yes, bad
untime from (I suppose it's not documented anywhere in install.texi
nor is it placed in infrastructure/ or supported to be built in-tree).
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild,
Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On March 2, 2015 5:32:27 AM CET, Kugan
wrote:
>On 02/03/15 15:29, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/01/15 16:32, Kugan wrote:
>>> In linaro-4.9-branch, with the following (reduced) test case, I run
>into
>>> a situation where loop_latch_edge is NULL during jump threading. I
>am
>>> wondering if this a po
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/03/15 12:57, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>>
>> As a data point(*) it might be interesting to note that GCC itself
>> relies on memcpy providing stronger guarantees than the C standard
>> requires it to by emitting calls to the function for large
On March 7, 2015 11:01:12 AM CET, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>Hello All:
>
>I would like to propose the Unrolling factor based on Data reuse
>between different iterations. This combines the data
>reuse of different iterations into single iterations. There is a use of
>MaxFactor which decides on t
On March 8, 2015 3:39:08 PM CET, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>Hello All:
>
>The path splitting that replicates the code for better Data flow
>Analysis available. One of the properties
>of path splitting removes the joining nodes for the forked path like
>IF-THEN-ELSE and the Loops.
>
>The removal
On March 8, 2015 4:58:49 PM CET, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:05 PM
>To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; vmaka...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>Cc: Vinod
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/08/15 12:13, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see. This basically creates two loop latches and thus will make our
>> loop detection code turn the loop into a fake loop nest. Not sure if that
>> is a good i
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Robbert Krebbers
wrote:
> I was wondering whether GCC uses 6.5.16.1p3 of the C11 standard as a license
> to perform certain optimizations. If so, could anyone provide me an example
> program.
>
> In particular, I am interested about the "then the overlap shall be ex
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:59 PM, vax mzn wrote:
>> w.r.t, https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Speedup_areas where we want to improve the
>> performance of splay trees.
>>
>> The function `splay_tree_node splay_tree_lookup (splay_tree,
>> splay_tree_k
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Robbert Krebbers
wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> On 03/10/2015 09:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> struct X { int i; int j; };
>>
>> int foo (struct X *p, struct X *q)
>> {
>>q->j = 1;
>>p->i = 0;
>
On March 15, 2015 9:15:36 AM GMT+01:00, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>Hello All:
>
>Short circuit compiler transformation for conditional branches. The
>conditional branches based on the conditional
>Expressions one of the path is always executed thus short circuiting
>the path. Certains values of t
On March 15, 2015 11:14:59 AM GMT+01:00, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>Ajit Kumar Agarwal
>Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 3:35 PM
>To: Richard Biener; Jeff Law; gcc@gcc.gnu.o
On March 15, 2015 3:44:39 PM GMT+01:00, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>Hello All:
>
>Below examples are the transformation for the given loop in Fig(1).
>Fig(2) unroll and jam and the Fig(3) does the
>Code motion to bring two IF adjacent to each other and two while loops
>adjacent to each other.
>
On March 16, 2015 7:15:23 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 03/14/15 22:40, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>> Hello All:
>>
>> I am proposing the new approach to Loop transformation as given below
>in the example For the loops with
>> conditional expression inside the Loops. The Loop body should be
>re
On March 17, 2015 3:37:25 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 03/16/2015 09:45 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:45 PM
>> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Aditya K wrote:
>
>
>
>> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 02:32:23 -0400
>> From: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org
>> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposal for adding splay_tree_find (to find elements without
>> updating the nodes).
>>
>
On March 19, 2015 4:57:37 AM GMT+01:00, Trevor Saunders
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:09:28PM +0800, xue yinsong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/3/18 下午10:08, "Diego Novillo" wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, xue yinsong
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Somehow this project is not in t
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> If you move the call to rest_of_decl_compilation we could go through and
> prune the debug info for unused decls at dwarf2out_finish time, the way we
> do with unused types.
True. Note that the varpool nodes eventually get created once the
Status
==
The trunk is open for regression and documentation fixes only.
We've come a long way towards the release criteria of zero P1 bugs.
There are still a few remaining P1s though and we are targeting
for a GCC 5 release candidate in the first week of April (given
those P1 bugs are eithe
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry if I missed part of the discussion about the new numbering scheme and
> the answer to my question is already clear from that: why we do have 5.0 as
> Milestone in Bugzilla instead of 5.1?!?
Yeah, well ... details. We chose to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
>> Though, 5.0 milestone isn't completely meaningless, it means plan to fix it
>> already before the release.
>
> That's true for all 5.1 milestone bugs as well. :-)
It would be "fix during development aka stage1-3
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>>
>>> Though, 5.0 milestone isn't completely meaningless, it means plan to fix it
>>> already before the release.
&
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, xue yinsong wrote:
> I think the gimple front end project would be quite useful to gcc so I’d like
> to do work on it this summer.
>
> The problem is, it seems the GIMPLE front end project hasn’t been active for
> some time
> and Diego Novillo told me it may not
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, xue yinsong wrote:
> Thanks for your reply to my proposal.
> AFAIS, most of the files generated by -fdump-tree-all are presented in C-like
> form instead
> of in lisp-like tuple form.
> So it’s better to implement a front end for the C-like gimple representations.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, xue yinsong wrote:
>> Thanks for your reply to my proposal.
>> AFAIS, most of the files generated by -fdump-tree-all are presented in
>> C-like form instead
>> of in lisp-
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Gry Gunvor wrote:
> I want to modify gcc 4.9.2 so that array subscripting expressions a[b]
> generate a new instruction/syscall foo(a, b) (that is, taking a and b
> as arguments) rather than just being turned into *(a+b).
>
> Further, I want accesses into multi-dim
On April 3, 2015 5:41:35 PM GMT+02:00, Diego Novillo
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 09:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
So it’s better not to try to read the exact dump format.
C
t isn't appropriate to use it.
Richard.
> Gry
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On April 3, 2015 5:41:35 PM GMT+02:00, Diego Novillo
>> wrote:
>>>On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> On 04/03
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a simple gimple question. I am trying to introduce an array
> into a gimple stream and create a pointer to that array.
>
> I can create the array with:
>
> array_type = build_array_type_nelts (char_type_node, 256);
> arr
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 09:41 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> I was hesitant to offer this option, but it's certainly a good
>>> starting point.
On April 7, 2015 5:00:27 PM GMT+02:00, Stefan Ehrlich
wrote:
>Hello GCC developer team,
>I hope I am right here to address my problem with memory usage and g++:
>
>I am writing C++ software for several very small embedded systems (8k
>and smaller) and a feature with the virtual tables and the li
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On 04/07/2015 09:00 AM, Stefan Ehrlich wrote:
>> compiler and linker options are:
>> avr-g++.exe -c -Os -Wall -fdata-sections -ffunction-sections
>> -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fno-rtti -flto
>> -fuse-linker-plugin -mmcu=atm
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Yinsong Xue wrote:
> On 15/4/7 下午4:33, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>
>>I still like the idea of using C + extensions most. As well as making the
>>-fdump-tree-XXX dumps (more) valid C (+ extensions). Cut & pasting
>>from dump fi
)
> (.data + .bss + .noinit)
>
>
> I added the -fwhole-program flag (as mentioned by Zan Lynx) but without any
> effect.
> Is here something missing or too much?
>
> Lg
>
> Stefan
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent
> Von: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. April 2015 11:00
> An: Jan Hubicka
> Cc: Richard Biener; Stefan Ehrlich; GCC Development; zl...@acm.org
> Betreff: Re: g++keeps unused objects with virtual functions
>
>> > which show
s/objects, too. Or
> am I wrong?
Well - analysis to prove that global objects are unused is more
difficult, so yes, you are wrong.
Richard.
> Stefan
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. Apr
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:14 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:20:06AM +0100, Ekanathan, Saravanan wrote:
>> (I had sent this mail to gcc-help a week ago. Not sure, all GCC developers
>> are subscribed to gcc-help, so re-sending to GCC development mailing list)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>
he same TYPE_UID as well
as seen in a debugging session looking at the functions BLOCK
tree before gimplification.
You must be doing sth wrong.
Richard.
>
>
> On Thursday 09 April 2015 03:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Swati Rathi
On April 9, 2015 5:11:00 PM GMT+02:00, Swati Rathi
wrote:
>I have enabled the LTO infrastructure using -flto -flto-partition=none.
>
>In the LTO infrastructure, when I try to print the TYPE_UID for the
>types of variable var1 and var2, its different (as mentioned in my
>first
>post).
>
>IStream
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
>
> We want to store all the types associated with the class objects or pointer
> to a class in a program.
>
> Consider two variables var1 and var2 declared in different functions as
> below.
> class IStream *var1;
> class IStream *var2;
On April 11, 2015 9:23:18 PM GMT+02:00, Gerald Pfeifer
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The following aims to document the details of the versioning scheme
>we
>> intend to use for GCC 5 and up.
>>
>> Summary in non-html: Development of GCC
> Don't you want just
> if (TREE_CODE (scev) == SSA_NAME && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (scev)))
> instead (i.e. just give up on all pointers/references)? That is what the
> middle-end usually tests...
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> Hi!
>
> To be clear I only want to talk about gcc/**/*.c but *not* testsuite/
>
> The Question of changing from .c to a more standard C++ file extension
> has come up a couple times. I believe its reasonable accurate to say
> the consensus
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Trevor Saunders
>> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > To be clear I only want to talk about gcc/**/*.c b
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
> See:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg01975.html
>
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
> Bootstrap comparison f
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> because I really dislike the hassle our (almost) flattened header
> files cause quite often, I have made a very simple experiment to find
> out how the header files really depend on each other. Some results,
> together with a dozen o
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 04/22/2015 09:10 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>
>>> Why is loop fusion important, especially in Fortran 90 and later programs
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Because without it, every array assignment is
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Following up to my own email, I think I found the missing magic. I
> needed to set global_regs[16] to 1. Once global_regs was set for the
> register, the assignment stopped getting optimized out.
There is a helper in varasm.c (?) that does
the term "stage
> 4" here.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
>
> Do you think "stage 4" explanation is missing in "GCC Development Plan"
> document?
> If so, can anyone please explain it or write the description on the docume
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 10:12 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>
>> After copyrename3, immediately prior to dom1, the loop body looks like:
>>
>>:
>>
>>:
>># i_11 = PHI
>>_5 = a[i_11];
>>_6 = i_11 & _5;
>>if (_6 != 0)
>> goto ;
>>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
>> Behalf Of James Greenhalgh
>
> Hi James,
>
>>
>> The stages, timings, and exact rules for which patches are acceptable
>> and when, seem to have drifted quite substantiall
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:56 AM, wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 08:27 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For the following illustrative code,
>>
>> double f1(int x) { return (double)(float)x; } --> return (double)x;
>> int f2(double x) { return (int)(float)x; } --> return (int)x;
>>
>> Is it Okay fo
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Gentlemen!
>
> I believe I have done as much as is reasonable for a merge, but I'd like to
> get your opinion before I post a huge patch to the list.
>
> The branch bootstraps with one regression in GCC
> (gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/stacked-qualifi
On May 6, 2015 5:56:10 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, 6 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> >> double f1(int x) { return (double)(float)x; } --> return
>(double)x;
>> >> int f2(double x) { return (int)(float)x; } --> return (int)x;
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 05/06/2015 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Gentlemen!
>>>
>>> I believe I have done as much as is reasonable fo
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the particular motivation is a TMP compile-time search of an
> element, but could be extended to other scenarios.
>
> In my example, given:
>
> template
> struct Static_Find
> {
> static size_t find(size_t /*target*/)
> {
>
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mark maule wrote:
> I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
> compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an answer,
> so starting with the full src code. I have not attempted to reduce to a
> simpler test case ye
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jens Maurer wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>> - the "you can add/subtract integral values" still opens you up to
>>> language lawyers claiming "(char *)ptr - (intptr_t)
t;no" from me basically. But I'm willing to be convinced
otherwise (not having looked into the z13 backend patches at all).
CCing that other release manager we have as well.
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham
Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 10:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux
> >> distrib
different one.
> What do you think about installing the patch to trunk? If yes, I'll test the
> patch
> and write a ChangeLog entry.
I think a patch like this is fine (lto-partition.h parts are missing).
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham
Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
701 - 800 of 2622 matches
Mail list logo
