Re: Missed optimization in PRE?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu,

Re: C++: Letting compiler know asm block can call function that can throw?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 03/29/2012 01:16 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> Of course, there's still the problem of getting the unwind data correct at >>> the point of the asm.  I commented about that in the PR you filed. >> >> I think i386 still has the problem that

Re: C++: Letting compiler know asm block can call function that can throw?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > >> > > Anyway, would it be worthwhile filing an RFE for an asm annotation >> > > telling the compiler that it contains code that can throw? >> > >> > I suppose yes. >> >>

Re: Proposed plugin API for GCC

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi, > > David Malcolm skribis: > >> How do other plugin authors feel about the API? > > I think this approach would lead to a duplication of each GCC API. I would call it an abstraction of GCC internals (disclaimer: I did not look at the

Re: gcc extensibility

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi, > > Gabriel Dos Reis skribis: > >> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a >> specification and an API they agree on. > > I think it’s wrong to consider plug-ins as second-class citizens. > > The plug-in mechanism

Re: Proposed plugin API for GCC

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Ludovic Courtès > wrote: > >> What about sticking to the current “API” instead, and explicitly marking >> as internal those parts that core developers know are still in flux? > > A guarantee of perpetual d

Re: Proposed plugin API for GCC

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > I had a go at writing a possible plugin API for GCC, and porting parts > of my python plugin to it: > http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=gcc-python-plugin.git;a=commitdiff;h=36a0d6a45473c39db550915f8419a794f2f5653e > > It's very much at the

Re: C++: Letting compiler know asm block can call function that can throw?

2012/3/30 Jan Hubicka : >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> > On 03/29/2012 01:16 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >>> Of course, there's still the problem of getting the unwind data correct >> >>> at >> >>> the point of the asm.  I commented about that in the PR you filed. >

Re: Why can't copy renaming capture this assignment?

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote: > Hi, > > For this small case, > > char garr[100]; > void f(void) > { >        unsigned short h, s; > >        s = 20; > >        for (h = 1; h < (s-1); h++) >        { >                garr[h] = 0; >        } > } > > After copyrename3, we have

Re: Plugins always enabled in GCC 4.8?

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:41:09 -0400 > Diego Novillo wrote: > >> On 3/31/12 1:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> >> > If we want to aim towards a more modular GCC made of several shared >> > libraries, it seems >> > that we are requi

Re: Plugins always enabled in GCC 4.8?

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Basile Starynkevitch > wrote: > >>> You appear to be moving in directions that may give pause to >>> those who championed better separation of concerns in GCC. >> >> >> I am not sure to understand that last

Re: Why can't copy renaming capture this assignment?

2012/4/3 Jiangning Liu : > > 在 2012-4-2 下午4:37，"Richard Guenther" 写道： > > >> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Jiangning Liu >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > For this small case, >> > >> > char garr[10

Re: Proposed gcc plugin plugin API mk 2 (this time without camel case!)

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > I wrote a script and ported my proposed API for GCC plugins from my > CamelCase naming convention to an underscore_based_convention (and > manually fixed up things in a few places also). > > The result compiles and passes the full test suite f

Re: compiling gcc 2.95.3 under ubuntu 10.04.2, x86_64

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/02/2012 06:29 PM, Roman Suvorov wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> Not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, feel free to point >> me in the right direction. > > Redirect to gcc-help. > >> I'm looking into the evolution of Lin

Re: Proposed gcc plugin plugin API mk 2 (this time without camel case!)

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >> I wrote a script and ported my proposed API for GCC plugins from my >> CamelCase naming convention to an underscore_based_convention (and >> manually fixed up t

Re: Proposed gcc plugin plugin API mk 2 (this time without camel case!)

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Romain Geissler wrote: > > Le 3 avr. 2012 à 18:02, David Malcolm a écrit : > >> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon,

Re: Proposed gcc plugin plugin API mk 2 (this time without camel case!)

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >> >> I wrote a scrip

Re: Why can't copy renaming capture this assignment?

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote: > >> So I suppose for this specific case a pass that performs type >> promotion/demotion >> (as was discussed repeatedly) would be a better thing, and an enablement >> of trivial redundancy removal. >> > This case is from a real  benchmark and t

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> >>> We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by >>> default. >>> >>> The mechanics of the chang

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >>>> On Tue

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis >>> wrote: >&g

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a >> branch/patch out >> that shows benefit from using C++.  I previously mentioned that I'd like

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2).  1) and 2) can be combined >> by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class, with proper GC support. >> (not sur

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. Comments? >>> >>> Umm,

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes: > > Richard> Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's > Richard> compiled by a C++ compiler? ... > > If you mean gdb

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes: >> >> Richard> Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's &g

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2012 Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> > On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > > So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2).  1) and 2) >

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Andrew Haley writes: > >> On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Andrew Haley writes: >>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. > Comments?

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: >> On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >>> Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim. >> >> >> But it does seem to come out of a few anecdotal requests >> for a change,

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. >>> Comments? >> >> >> I'd just like to explicitly mention (th

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: > >> Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that >> we enable at -Wall by default. > > Which ones for example? > > Here

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: > On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> >> On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: >>> >>> Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization >>> options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs >>> in thei

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote: > On 04/04/2012 08:20 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >>> Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a >>> branch/patch out >>>

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: > >> It's on my large TODO list, somewhere at the bottom, to propose >> to make -O1 stop after early optimizations and drop right to >> expansion from there.  That would turn optimization expectations >> upside-down of course, but early optimizat

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 09:04, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão >> wrote: >>> >>> Is anyone currently working or this? >>> >>> I'

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:11 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: > >>> xlc -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti conftest.c >>> >>> fails.  I don't think -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions does what GCC expects. >> >> Thanks for these data.  I think -fno-rtti and -fno-

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/5/12, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > > Making tree or gimple a C++ class with inheritance and >> > > whatever i

Re: Missed optimization in PRE?

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Ri

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change >> > using C++, though the two could be bundled into one patch.  In any

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt >> wrote: >>> On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> So - I'll veto

Re: Thousands of enum warnings building gcc

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: >> On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote: >>> Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of >>> gcc warning-wise for the windows targets.  This has historic

Re: Thousands of enum warnings building gcc

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely >>> wrote: >>>>

Re: Missed optimization in PRE?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 P

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 4/10/12 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Edelsohn >>  wrote: >> >>> Also, it will be more convenient to make this change incrementally, >>> but the GCC community probably will not see much ben

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 18:24 +0200, Michael Matz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> >> > >> >             exp->as_component_ref().get_field() .. >> >> > > Actually it's not questionable.  The above stuff is _

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012/4/10 Dave Korn : > On 10/04/2012 17:41, Paweł Sikora wrote: >> On Tuesday 10 of April 2012 10:46:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have two hierarchies for gcc

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/10/12, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Apr 9, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > > >

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> That when stepping through code in the debugger you keep >> enterring/exiting these one liner inlines, most of them really >> should be at least by default considered just as normal statements >> (e.g. gl

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> But IMHO not sufficient for a switch.  The GCC C++ proponents should do >> more on a branch to convince.  Yes, the syntactic suger for vec.h isn't >> very nice, but the actual implementation is very clever and heavily tuned >> for GCC's nee

Re: Missed optimization in PRE?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >>> >>> Turns out if-conver

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/11/2012 09:45 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and >> the goal post moving. >> Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we >> switch to C++? > > Fran

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: >> > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code >> > completion tools.

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012/4/11 Paweł Sikora : > On Wednesday 11 of April 2012 14:57:53 Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > >> Now, how many release cycles do we have until LLVM is basically good > >> enough to be used as a distro compiler > > > > freebsd-9 switches to clang/llvm as a distro compiler. > > some info @ http://wik

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Chiheng Xu wrote: > > The reason why GCC's code is very hard to hack is not simple. In part, > this is because GCC use a very old, extremely hard to understand build > system. In part, this is because GCC developer are more focused on > fixing bugs or adding new f

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 11 April 2012 19:41, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >>> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently. >>> >>> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's >>> diagnostics

Re: Wiki slowness

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 4/12/12 3:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to >>> reload the page? >> >> >> By several I mean in excess of ten mi

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 13 April 2012 11:04, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >>> On 13 April 2012 02:40, Joe Buck wrote: I'm not interested in color output, and would turn it off if it were >

Re: About sink load from memory in tree-ssa-sink.c

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > Hi, > As discussed at thread > "http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/msg00396.html";, I am trying a patch > now. > The problem here is I have to go through all basic block from > "sink_from" to "sink_to" to check whether > the memory might be clobbe

Re: What do do with the exceptional case of expand_case for SJLJ exceptions

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hello, > > If I move GIMPLE_SWITCH lowering from stmt.c to somewhere in the > GIMPLE pass pipeline, I run into an issue with SJLJ exceptions. The > problem is that except.c:sjlj_emit_dispatch_table() builts a > GIMPLE_SWITCH and calls expa

Re: Announce - Thread safety annotations no longer supported in GCC

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 4/19/12 4:14 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> How do you know it is a major effort?  Has any issues related to >> changing Tuple/front-ends AST been raised to the mailing list and >> asked for help on how to implement these changes? > > > Th

Re: About sink load from memory in tree-ssa-sink.c

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> >> I don't understand method 2.  I'd do >> >>  start at the single predeces

Re: About sink load from memory in tree-ssa-sink.c

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed,

Re: Attempting changes to the GIMPLifier

2012/4/22 : > Dear all, > > I have a few questions regarding how to augment the information dumped in > "004t"  GIMPLE dumps (prior any optimization). > > My main concerns are: > > 1. Printing global variables. Look at the cgraph (.000i.cgraph) dump. > 2. Preserving function arguments (what I ca

Re: [RFC] Converting end of loop computations to MIN_EXPRs.

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi, > > A colleague noticed that we were not vectorizing loops that had end of > loop computations that were MIN type operations that weren't expressed > in the form of a typical min operation. A transform from  (i < x ) && > ( i < y)

Re: A case where PHI-OPT pessimizes the code

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hello, > > I ported the code to expand switch() statements with bit tests from > stmt.c to GIMPLE, and looked at the resulting code to verify that the > transformation applies correctly, when I noticed this strange PHI-OPT > transformation

Re: target specific builtin expansion (middle end and back end definition inconsistence problem?).

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Feng LI writes: > >> Yes, you are right. But how could I reference to a backend defined >> builtin >> function in the middle end (I need to generate the builtin function in >> the >> middle end and expand it in x86 b

Re: locating unsigned type for non-standard precision

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Peter Bigot wrote: > I've run into another issue supporting a 20-bit integer for which I'd > appreciate a hint.  With this code: > >   typedef long int __attribute__((__a20__)) int20_t; >   int20_t xi; >   int20_t addit () { xi += 0x54321L; } > > xi ends up in mode

Re: locating unsigned type for non-standard precision

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote: > >>> I've run into another issue supporting a 20-bit integer for which I'd >>> appreciate a hint.  With this code: >>> >>>   typedef long int __attribute__((__a2

Re: GCC Plugins - CC1 - Multiple processes on PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > [ Please do not send html mail.  It will be rejected by the list server. ] > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:16, wrote: > >> That much I understand. But it's cc1 that is in two processes, and gcc -v >> only shows it being invoked once. Finally

Re: locating unsigned type for non-standard precision

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>>> Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I've

Re: locating unsigned type for non-standard precision

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote: >> Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>>> Richard Guenther wrote: >>>>> Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>

Re: GCC47 movmem breaks RA, GCC46 RA is fine

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Hi, > > I am facing a problem with the GCC47 register allocation and my movmemqi. > GCC46 dealt very well with the problem but GCC47 keeps throwing at me > register spill failures. > > My backend has very few registers. 3 chip registers in t

Re: locating unsigned type for non-standard precision

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote: >> [PR c/51527] >> >> I think the fix would be sth like >> >> Index: gcc/convert.c >> === >> --- gcc

Re: GCC47 movmem breaks RA, GCC46 RA is fine

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > On 27/04/12 09:21, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> >>> >>> This differs from what GCC47 does and seems to work better. >>> I would like help on how to best handle this situation under GCC47. >> &

Re: [RFC] Converting end of loop computations to MIN_EXPRs.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Sorry about the delayed response, I've been away for some time. > >> >> I don't exactly understand why the general transform is not advisable. >> We already synthesize min/max operations. > > >> >> Can you elaborate on why you think tha

Re: 4.7.0 regression? gcc.c-torture/execute/vla-dealloc-1.c failure.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan wrote: > Hi, > > Similarly for the following two test case which deals with VLA > de-allocation in a branch back situation: >  1. gcc.c-torture/execute/pr43220.c >  2. gcc.c-torture/execute/20040811-1.c Can you try --param large-sta

Re: 4.7.0 regression? gcc.c-torture/execute/vla-dealloc-1.c failure.

k if one is already present for these failures). I have no idea what could have caused them, but ia64 is basically unmaintained. Richard. > Regards, > Kannan > > -----Original Message- > From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5

Re: -Os seems to remove a variable necessary for my transformation

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Matt Davis wrote: > I have been fighting with a simple problem for the past few nights.  In my > GIMPLE pass I create a variable, an ssa name for that variable, and then > assign > it to the LHS of a call I build: > >  call = gimple_build_call(fndecl, 0); >  decl =

Re: h8300-elf build broken

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: >> >> I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic >> points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary >> expression, and I can't figure out what it's compla

Re: Question about bitsizetype

hrec_b = chrec_convert (type, chrec_b, NULL); >> >  difference = chrec_fold_minus (type, chrec_a, chrec_b); >> > >> > Both input types are bitsizetype of mode TImode.  This call reduces to a >> > call to tree.c: signed_or_unsigned_type_for (): >&

Re: Merging gdc (GNU D Compiler) into gcc

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 11 April 2012 15:12, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 4 October 2011 08:08, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D >>> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintain

Re: Will backend ever see an memory operand with address wrap around?

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to optimize memory address for x32.  X32 runs in 64-bit mode. > 64-bit address is base + index * scale + offset: > 1. Base is 64bit. > 2. Index is 64bit. > 3. Offset is 8bit or 32bit > > 0x67 address size prefix is used to zero-

Re: Will backend ever see an memory operand with address wrap around?

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am trying to optimize memory address for x32.  X32 runs in 64-bit mode. >

Re: Will backend ever see an memory operand with address wrap around?

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Geert Bosch wrote: > > On May 13, 2012, at 21:17, amyl...@spamcop.net wrote: >> The expectation is wrap-around.  Note that loop strenght reduction can >> cause assumed wrap-around semantics in RTL for strictly conforming C input >> where no such wrap-around is in e

Re: A question about loop ivopt

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote: > Hi, > > Why can't we replace function force_expr_to_var_cost directly with function > computation_cost in tree-ssa-loop-ivopt.c? > > Actually I think it is inaccurate for the current recursive algorithm in > force_expr_to_var_cost to estimate

Re: A question about loop ivopt

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > Hi, > >> > > > Why can't we replace function force_expr_to_var_cost directly with >> function >> > > > computation_cost in tree-ssa-loop-ivopt.c? >> > > > >> > > > Actually I think it is inaccurate for the current recursive algorithm >> in >>

Re: A question about loop ivopt

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:17 PM >> To: Zdenek Dvorak >> Cc: Jiangning Liu; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jiangning

Re: ICE with MEM_REF when Pmode is different from word_mode

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote: > Hi, > > I am porting a private target in GCC 4.6.3 version. For my target > pointer size is 24bits and word size is 32bits. Moreover a byte is > 32bit > > For the testcase gcc.c-torture/compile/92-1.c i get the following ICE > > 92-1.

GCC 4.7.1 Status Report (2012-05-30)

Status == The GCC 4.7 branch is in regression and documentation fixes only state. A release candidate for GCC 4.7.1 is scheduled for the beginning of next week. This is a good time to verify regression status for your favorite target and to consider to flush your pending 4.7-branch patches

Re: ICE with MEM_REF when Pmode is different from word_mode

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote: > On 29 May 2012 17:31, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am porting a private target in GCC 4.6.3 version. For my target >>> p

Re: GCC 4.7.1 Status Report (2012-05-30)

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > Status > > == > > > > The GCC 4.7 branch is in regression and documentation fixes only state. > > > > A release candidate for GCC 4.7.1 is schedu

Re: [RFH] Uses of output.h in the front ends

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hello, > > In a perfect world, front ends would not be writing out anything to > the assembler output. GCC is not part of this perfect world, at least > not yet. It should be possible, with a little help from front-end > maintainers, especia

Re: [RFH] Uses of output.h in the front ends

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >>> have_global_bss_p: >>> cp/decl.c:      && !have_global_bss_p ()) >>> ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:      && !have_global_bss_p

Re: [RFH] Uses of output.h in the front ends

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >>> first_global_object_name: >>> ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:  first_global_object_name = ggc_strdup >>> (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (t

Re: [RFH] Uses of output.h in the front ends

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>>> first_global_object_name: >>>> ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:

GCC 4.7.1 Status Report (2012-06-05), branch frozen

The GCC 4.7 branch is now frozen for creating a first release candidate of the GCC 4.7.1 release. All changes need explicit release manager approval until the final release of GCC 4.7.1 which should happen roughly one week after the release candidate if no issues show up with it. Previous Repo

GCC 4.7.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.1 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.1-RC-20120606 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 188257. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-linux. Please test it and report an

Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more >> stage2.  We now go directly from stage1 to stage3.  This is just another >> feature of gcc development seemingly designed

Re: builtin_strncat/builtin_strcat reads memory pointed to by the first argument?

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > Hi, > In "ref_maybe_used_by_call_p_1", the comment says "strcat/strncat > additionally reads memory pointed to by the first argument." I do not > understand these words well, why the first string is read by the two > functions? Because we need

Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: >> why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage" >> and "Stabilizing Stage"?  I realize those are rather long names, but you >> can always put short forms

<    14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   >