commit 3b9b8d6cfdf59337f4b7ce10ce92a98044b2657b
Author: Surya Kumari Jangala
Date: Tue Jun 25 08:37:49 2024 -0500
ira: Scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with block frequency
scales the cost of saving/restoring a callee-save hard register in epilogue
and prologue with the en
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 09:50:41AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:59 PM David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 23:31 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > From: Andi Kleen
> > >
> > > This is the hot function in input.cc
> > >
> > > The vectorizer can vectorize it n
>
> If I reading this right, calls to get_next_line lead to insertions into
> the ring buffer whilst the buffer is empty or the last line in the ring
> buffer cache is m_line_num - 1.
>
> There are a few places where we update m_line_num, but this caching
> code doesn't seem to touch those places
On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 09:35:52PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Patch 7 is OK otherwise, and I'm taking a look at the rest of the
> > patches now; thanks.
>
> Any comments on the other patches?
nm. I see you already commented. somehow i missed that.
-Andi
> Patch 7 is OK otherwise, and I'm taking a look at the rest of the
> patches now; thanks.
Any comments on the other patches?
Thanks,
-Andi
This version has all the updates as per feedback from version 1. It makes a
minor correction to the code styling, reformats the commit message and moves
the test into the cpp1z directory.
In addition I've updated the test to conform with c++17 for better coverage.
Andrew Pinski had put one up on
On Monday, 27 January 2025 at 19:48, Jason Merrill - jason at redhat.com
wrote:
>
> On 1/27/25 1:26 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 1 Jan 2025, A J Ryan Solutions Ltd wrote:
> >
> > > Hi and happy new year, this patch is to fix a compiler seg-fault as
> > > encountered in the following ex
Since commit r15-491-gc290e6a0b7a9de this failure happens on on
armv8l-linux-gnueabihf and arm-eabi:
Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/simd/simd.exp ...
gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c: memmove found 0 times
FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c scan-assembler-times memmove 3
In PR PR target/116010, Andre
Hi,
I sent https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-February/061670.html
to gcc-patches also, as normal, but got back an e-mail that it
was too large. and that a moderator would look at it.
Maybe the limits can be increased a bit, sometimes patches can
be quite large, especially if they contai
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, this pedwarni is desirable for the implicit or
explicit capturing of structured bindings in C++17, but in the case of
init-captures the initializer is just some expression and that can include
structured bindings.
So, the following patch limits the warning to non-expli
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 4:20 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 02.02.2025 um 08:59 schrieb H.J. Lu :
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 3:33 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Am 02.02.2025 um 08:00 schrieb H.J. Lu :
> >>>
> >>> Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x,
> Am 02.02.2025 um 08:59 schrieb H.J. Lu :
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 3:33 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
Am 02.02.2025 um 08:00 schrieb H.J. Lu :
>>>
>>> Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x, which leads to that
>>> callee-saved registers aren't used to preserve
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 3:33 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 02.02.2025 um 08:00 schrieb H.J. Lu :
> >
> > Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x, which leads to that
> > callee-saved registers aren't used to preserve local variable values
> > across calls, by capping the scale t
13 matches
Mail list logo
