On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hmpf. Strange. I've bootstrapped with all languages except Ada
>> yesterday, with gold as plugin-ld.
>
> GNU ld (with plugins) for me, but --enable-checking=yes,rtl. Maybe H.J. had
> e.g. --enable-checking=release. In any case, something
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This merge brings the branch up to rev 172662.
>
> There are some LTO failures which are ICEs induced by a new
> assertion I added in bp_pack_value. We discussed this in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg01115.html.
>
> The failure happen
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> This brings out 2 questions. Why don't GCC 4.4/4.6/4.7 warn it?
>>> Why doesn't 64bit GCC 4.2 warn it?
>>
>> Good question. It seems that the difference is whether the compiler
>
Status
==
A first release candidate for GCC 4.5.3 is beeing made. The branch
is now frozen until after the final 4.5.3 release. All changes
require explicit release manager approval.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from Last Report
--- ---
A first release candidate for GCC 4.5.3 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5.3-RC-20110421/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 172803.
I have sofar bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it an
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Funck wrote:
>
> Recently, we tried to merge the GCC trunk into the GUPC branch
> and ran into an issue caused by a recent GCC update.
> The last successful merge was trunk version 172359, fyi.
>
> For certain UPC file scope static initializers,
> a per file i
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM, cirrus75 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I would like to ask if all this should be tree level optimization
> or there would be something to do at backend. I am asking because I am trying
> to write a new backend.
It should be dealt with at the tree level by lower
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I am Dimitris (IRC nick: jimis), and this summer I will be working on
> optimising GCC, under the umbrella of Google Summer of Code. My proposal
> involves profiling and benchmarking in order to detect hotspots in both C
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Deryck Hodge writes:
>
>> I work at Canonical on Launchpad and am trying to setup syncing
>> between our bug tracker and the GCC bug tracker. Specifically, we
>> want to enable comment syncing between linked bugs on our trackers and
>> b
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are some areas I'll look closer to, as shown by some early profiling
>>> I performed:
>>> * hash tables (both htab and symtab)
>>
>> There is probably a lot of tuning
Status
==
GCC 4.5.3 has been released, the release will be announced after
mirrors have catched up. The branch is open again for regression
and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from Last Report
--- ---
P1
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 03:28 PM, Yuan Pengfei wrote:
>>>
>>> Any other advice will be appreciated.
>>
>> I think you can look into llvm-clang. It compiles faster and uses
>> much less memory than gcc.
>
> It is also a completely different compiler. I
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
> I am writing a gcc plugin and am trying to detect if a value assigned by a
> function call, is a global variable or not. Unfortunately, all calls to
> 'is_global_var' with a DECL type are returning false.
>
> My pass executes after alias analysi
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 3:24 AM, David Daney wrote:
> Consider this program under GNU/Linux (x86_64):
>
> - np.c ---
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> static void handler(int sig)
> {
> printf("got signal %d\n", sig);
> throw 1;
> }
>
> int (*my_vecto
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Ian Bolton wrote:
> Does anyone have some thoughts they'd like to share on this:
>
> "When you compile anything using @file support, the driver assumes @file
> (at_file_supplied is true) is allowed and may pass options to the linker via
> @file using a *temporary*
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:08 PM, fanqifei wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am poring gcc 4.3.2 for a micro-controller and use it to compile C
> source code.
> I found that gcc is very sensitive to small changes in C source code
> even if the change doesn't affect any function of the source code.
> For exam
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, fanqifei wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:08 PM, fanqifei wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am poring gcc 4.3.2 for a micro-controller and use it to compile C
&
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> fanqifei writes:
>
Which file or fucntion should I look into? Maybe I can work around in 4.3.2
>>>
>>> Look into tree-ssa-alias.c and tree-ssa-structalias.c
>>>
What change in 4.5 fixed it?
>>>
>>> A complete rewrite of the abov
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Pierre Vittet writes:
>
>> First, thanks for your help. I have looked at several function using
>> calculate_dominance_info(). From what I understand, when you have
>> finish to use it, you have to clear the structure by making a
>> free
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
> I've noticed some behavior with g++ that seems strange to me. I don't
> know if there's some technicality in the C++ standard that requires
> this, or if it's just a limitation to the optimization code, but it
> seemed strange so I thought I
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
> For some analysis I am doing, I need to determine if a particular SSA_NAME_VAR
> node is pointed-to by a function argument. I am iterating across the
> function's
> arguments via DECL_ARGUMENTS(), but each argument is just a DECL node, and
>
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Feng LI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the code like:
> a_2 = 5; g1
> b_3 = 6; g2
> d_4 = a_2 + b_3; g3
>
> And I'd like to insert "tmp.globe = a_2" just after the definition of
> a_2 (after g1), so that the co
ourse it is. SSA names can be used multiple times just fine.
Richard.
> Feng
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Feng LI wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have the code like:
>>> a_2 = 5;
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Feng LI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to outline a function and move all basic-blocks in the function
> to different child functions. Only left 1 newly created bb in the original
> function with newly inserted statements.
>
> But I got an ICE when gcc call remove_ssa
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Matthias Kretz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Abstract :)
> ===
> A means to distinguish a patched GCC release from a vanilla GCC
> release should be added. This would enable developers to work
> around incompatibilities between GCC releases in public hea
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 May 2011 09:46, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>>>
>>> The cases where you have to work around compiler issues in a
>>> _header_ file should be very rare.
>>
>> And? Because they are rare we shouldn't care? I'm developing a template
>> librar
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Matthias Kretz
wrote:
> On Friday 27 May 2011 11:14:38 Richard Guenther wrote:
>> I know developing on the edge of what compilers support can be a PITA,
>> but it's more maintainable to have checks and workarounds in terms
>> of actual b
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Robert Beeporbop wrote:
> Thanks to all the gcc developers!
>
> I am working on a Linux distribution which compiles all binaries statically
> at run-time with WHOPR. I hope to:
>
> = Have everything running insanely fast. I did some testing with a couple
> prog
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Robert Beeporbop wrote:
> Thank you for the information!
>
> So it sounds like right now, I could use 4.6.0 (4.7.0?), and be
> architecture-independent between processors of the same type. Like, code
> could be compiled to GIMPLE with no optimization for generic
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Pierre Vittet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I try to use the plugin pragma-plugin.c which is given in the testsuite
> (gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/plugin/pragma_plugin.c), I have compiled it as a
> shared library.
>
> If I try it on a simple c file it works, however, if I use -flto
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:58:48 +0200
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Pierre Vittet wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I try to use the plugin pragma-plugin.c
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> The new routines lto_output_int_in_range and lto_input_int_in_range do
> not seem to be working right. In the pph branch, we have an LTO_tags
> enum with a range [0 - 351]. This is causing two things:
>
> - The writer gets out of sync with
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 22:15:29 +0200
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:58:48 +0200
>> > Richard Gu
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 16:19:31 -0400
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 13:44, Basile Starynkevitch
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Diego and other people interested in plugins, what do you think of such
>> > a proposal?
>>
>> I do
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:52:39 +0200
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> We could then,
>> reasoning with the plugin use, add additional langhooks encapsulating
>> functions such as c_register_pragma (possibly u
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:52:11 +0200
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't see a strong need for cross-language plugins with
>> frontend function access - "meta plugins" such as MELT
>>
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=6681e82c16913119b6a3ca0052efe9259d7377a9
>>
>> in git mit mirror, which isn't in svn gcc trunk.
>
> It's right here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?limit_changes=0&view=rev
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 11:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks like an accident, modifying both trunk and branches/fortran-dev.
>>> But the git mirror splits it between the trunk and fortran-dev branches.
>>
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Herman, Geza wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, if it has been discussed before, I found a lot of information on
> strict aliasing in gcc, but nothing about this particular case. I'd like to
> code a custom container class: it has a char[] (or dynamically allocated
> "char *"
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Herman, Geza wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 12:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Herman, Geza wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry, if it has been discussed before, I found a lot of inf
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Herman, Geza wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 03:02 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Herman, Geza wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2011 12:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 7 June 2011 15:20, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> However, for my construct, which appears to be completely legal, I get a
>>> warning, which I'd like to disable. How can I do that? Currently I&#x
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Revital Eres wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I get the following bootstrap failure on ppc64-redhat-linux with trunk
> -r174840
> compiling with -O2 flag..
Can you provide a backtrace and open a bugreport?
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Revital
>
>
> /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC -
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 10:20 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> no, a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is generally not an lvalue (fold for example
>> would turn the above to (volatile int) a[1]).
>
> The gimplifier seems to consider
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Erik Vaughn wrote:
>> GCC 4.6.1 is planned for roughly late May, unless any reason arises to>
>> release
>>it earlier.
>> The next report for 4.6.1 will be sent by Richard.
>
> Is there a reason that the release has been delayed?
Lack of time? Queuing up some m
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 06/10/2011 10:20 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> no, a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is generally not an lvalue (fold for example
>>> would
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/12/2011 06:59 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> The please provide a specification on what a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR does
>> to type-based alias analysis.
>
> If the alias set of the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR type
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 06:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > But I suppose you want the array-ref be folded to a constant eventually?
>
> Right.
>
> I'm not going to keep arguing about VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, but that brings me back
> t
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> I noticed that GCC converts short arithmetic to unsigned short.
>
> short foo2 (short a, short b)
> {
> return a - b;
> }
>
> In .gimple file:
>
> foo2 (short int a, short int b)
> {
> short int D.3347;
> short unsigned int a.0;
> s
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I noticed that GCC converts short arithmetic to unsigned short.
>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 10:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:47, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa || errorcount> 0)
>>> retur
2011/6/18 theUser BL :
>
> Hi!
>
> Currently I have nothing about it found in the mailinglist. So I try to ask
> it: How effect the OpenSource EKOPath the GCC ?
>
> Have a look at the latest press news of PathScale:
> http://www.pathscale.com/taxonomy/term/27
>
> Have additional a look at this art
2011/6/20 Eric Botcazou :
> Dear RMs,
>
> I'd like to have permission to backport the new -mflat support for SPARC from
> the mainline to the 4.6 branch. I received the first requests to reinstate
> the option last year, when Laurent (and some others) started to work on it,
> but the initial patch
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Apart from
>>
>> 2011-06-02 Eric Botcazou
>>
>> * cse.c (cse_find_path): Refine change to exclude EDGE_ABNORMAL_CALL
>> edges only, when there is a non-local label in the function.
>> * postreload-gcse.c (bb_has_well_
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> I've been working on a new plugin for GCC, which supports embedding
> Python within GCC, exposing GCC's internal data structures as Python
> objects and classes.
>
> The plugin links against libpython, and (I hope) allows you to invoke
> arbi
I am in the process of ending official maintainance for the GCC 4.3
branch. The GCC 4.3 branch is now considered closed and a final
release will be done from its head now.
Please do not apply any changes to the 4.3 branch from now on.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 06/27/2011 06:39 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>
>> It's my pleasure to announce that, also based on the recommendation of
>> Eric Botcazou as the current maintainer in that area¹, the steering
>> committee is appointing Richard Sandiford
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> I think it's great that Richard was appointed. I also understand Vlad's
> frustration and can't imagine why he isn't RA maintainer.
>
> On 06/28/11 14:39, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> We discussed th
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.3.6 has been released.
GCC 4.3.6 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and serious
bugs in GCC 4.3.5. This release marks the end of the maintainance of
the GCC 4.3 series.
The release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
http://www
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Marcin J." writes:
>
>> will be possible to add optimization that merge this two (or more) switch in
>> one big one (even if inner one is from inline function?) and then use one
>> jump table for both switches?
>
> Is it possible? Sur
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/11 09:38, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>
>> In GCC4.4 function test presents 2 callees foo() and bar() and the
>> sibcall is not done. In GCC4.5 the sibcall is done (but shouldn't)
>> because callees in cgraph is 0x0. I wonder if this
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 01/07/11 10:31, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> It is being done because the edges are not kept up-to-date. There is
>> no other way to find callees but to walk all statements. I also do not
>> see a good reaso
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> E.g.
>
> /home/toon/compilers/obj-t/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/toon/compilers/obj-t/./gcc/
> -B/tmp/c/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
> -B/tmp/c/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
> /tmp/c/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem
> /tmp/c/x86_64-unkno
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jon Grant writes:
>
>> On 2 February 2010 22:47, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Jon writes:
>>>
Is there a way to get collect2 to save the temporary .c file it
generates to have a look at it? I believe it may be the __main()
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> OK, I know I'm embarrassing myself here, but is libiberty's splay-tree.c
> doing the right thing for the zig-zig and zag-zag cases? The code reads:
>
> /* Now we have the four cases of double-rotation. */
> if (cmp1 < 0 && cmp2 < 0
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have finally ported my backend to the latest 4.6.1 after years of trying
> to play catch with the latest release version.
>
> I am now fixing some details.
>
> A source file has a function called: lm_change_to_active which, when
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 06:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On this build of GCC (standard Fedora 15 gcc package of 4.6.0), the
>> relevant part of cfgexpand.c looks like this:
>>
>> struct rtl_opt_pass pass_expand =
>> {
>> {
>> RTL_PASS,
>> "e
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I seek a tree attribute which tells that a "pointer" (in the C/middle-end
> sense) does not alias with any other variable in the translation unit (i.e.
> like "restrict"), but on the other hand, it should prevent code movement
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:54 PM, AJM-2 wrote:
>
> What you say is in line with my understanding, however when I instrument the
> execute function of ipa-function-and-variable-visibility
> (local_function_and_variable_visibility()) I note that:
>
> gcc -flto a.c b.c
> causes the pass to be called t
sure to use a recent SVN trunk though.
Richard.
>
>
> Richard Guenther-2 wrote:
>>
>> It depends on where in the pass pipeline you put your IPA pass. A simple
>> IPA pass that should run at ltrans time (either seeing each partition for
>> the partitioned program or th
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, PROP_gimple_lcx needs to be added to PROP_trees. I cannot approve
>> > the
>> > patch, unfortunately.
>>
>> Hm, why? complex
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tobias Burnus writes:
>
>> In that sense, I do not seem to need a new flags for
>> asynchronous/coarrays - which are handled by TYPE_QUAL_RESTRICT, but I
>> need a new flag for normal (noncoarray, nonasychronous) variables,
>> which are p
Hi,
I'm wondering why for Ada boolean_true_node has a value that is
not in the range of the Ada type but is, for the specific case,
255 instead of 1. Is there a specific reason for that?
Does the following patch make sense (untested)?
Btw, I wonder if Ada cannot simply use its own boolean_type
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 11:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> That Fortran passes everything by reference is really really not helping
>> optimizers.
>
> I think it also does not harm optimizers. The problem is just that
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I'm wondering why for Ada boolean_true_node has a value that is
> > not in the range of the Ada type but is, for the specific case,
> > 255 instead of 1. Is there a specific reason for that?
>
> None, boolean_true_node must be 1, that's why we (re)se
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > and from looking at SET_TYPE_RM_VALUEs definition it doesn't
> > touch TYPE_MAX_VALUE. So TYPE_MAX_VALUE is as set from
> > make_unsigned_type (8) which should set it to 255, not 1.
> >
> > So ... how can it be a no-op?
>
> Look a few lines below. :-
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Sure ;) What the middle-end currently lacks is explicit tracking of
>> what escapes through a function return as opposed to what escapes
>> somewhere els
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Diego Novillo writes:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 02:52, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> 2011-07-15 Ian Lance Taylor
>>>
>>> * configure.ac: Add --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx. If set,
>>> make C++ a boot_language.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a PARM_DECL node that I am passing to a function. Previously, my code
> was working, but since I have made my optimization pass operate as an IPA
> pass,
> versus a GIMPLE pass, I think I am missing some verification/resolution
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I have measured it at some point and IIRC it was about 10% slower
>> (comparing C bootstrap with C++ in stag1 languages with C++ bootstrap,
>> not sure if that included bootstrapping libstdc++ for the former).
>
> IMO acceptable now that the
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
>> Paolo has committed a change to that code, does it help the AIX bootstrap
>> issue?
>
> Paolo's patch gets me past the debug.cc issue.
>
> Using C++ on AIX will greatly increa
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need to use enum tree_code for default hook in hooks.c. I had to add
> "tree.h" include into "hook.c" for that. But it caused some errors in
> gcc build:
>
> gcc -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> Consider this bit of code:
>
> extern double a[20];
>
> double test1 (int n)
> {
> double accum = 0.0;
> int i;
>
> for (i=0; i accum = fabs (accum);
> return accum;
> }
>
> which is compiled for MIPS using
>
> mipsisa32r2-sde-elf-gc
2011/7/29 Daniel Marjamäki :
> Hello!
>
> In my humble opinion the -Wreorder has noise. When the order doesn't
> matter I would prefer that warnings are not issued.
>
> In this email I include a patch that I would like to get comments
> about. The patch will suppress warnings if all members are ini
2011/7/29 Daniel Marjamäki :
> Hello!
>
>> Why doesn't it matter in this case but it matters when the initializer
>> are non-constant?
>
> It doesn't matter because the program will behave the same no matter
> if the initializations are reordered or not. Logically it will behave
> just as the user
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> Hi there, I have compiled and run a set of C++ benchmarks on a CentOS4/64
> box using the following compilers:
> a) g++4.1 that is available for this distro (GCC version 4.1.2 20071124
> (Red Hat 4.1.2-42)
> b) g++4.6 that I built (stock
2011/8/1 Marc Glisse :
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I would like to propose this patch as a step toward building gcc using a
>> C++ compiler. This patch builds stage1 with the C compiler as usual,
>> and defaults to building stages 2 and 3 with a C++ compiler built during
>>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> I think it's the only viable solution (use the full enum for a non-GCC stage1
>> C++ compiler). We could help it somewhat by at least placing
>> enum bitfiel
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For the following simple test case, PRE optimization hoists computation
> (s!=1) into the default branch of the switch statement, and finally causes
> very poor code generation. This problem occurs in both X86 and ARM, and I
> believe
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Oleg Smolsky
wrote:
> On 2011/7/29 14:07, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>> Profiling tools are your best friend here. If you don't have access to
>> any, the least you can do is to build the program with -pg option and
>> use gprof tool to find out differences.
>
> Th
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/01/2011 01:30 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > 1) function inlining
> > > > 2) deferred argument evaluation
> > > > 3) because our target
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>>> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
>>> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> >
>>&g
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Michael Walle writes:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
> >
> > "lm32-gcc -O1 -fno-tree-ter -S -c test.c" generates the following working
> > assembly code:
> >
> > f2:
> > addi sp, sp, -4
> >
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>> > Michael Walle writes:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > >
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> Or go one step further and deprecate local register variables alltogether
>> (they IMHO don't make much sense, and rather the targets should provide
>> a way to properly con
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 05:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> -fno-tree-ter also unbreaks the ARM test case in PR48863 comment #4.
>>
>> It's of course only a workaround, not a real fix as nothing prevents
>> othe
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>>>> I suggest to amend the documentation for loc
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> > Yes, that's reasonable. As I understand the docs, in code like
>> >
>> > void foo ()
>> > {
>> > register int var asm
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 01:19 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
>> To make sure, it'd be nice if someone could perhaps grep an
>> entire GNU/Linux-or-other distribution including the kernel for
>> uses of asm-declared *local* registers that don't directly
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 10:52 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2011 01:19 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>>
>>>> To make sure, it'd be nice if s
401 - 500 of 2444 matches
Mail list logo
