On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>> Otherwise, this looks good.
>>
>
> Thanks, I've applied inputs!
>
> Comitted to MT: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-05/msg00047.html
>
It caused:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
--
H.J.
> Otherwise, this looks good.
>
Thanks, I've applied inputs!
Comitted to MT: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-05/msg00047.html
Thanks, K
On 04/27/12 05:49, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> + if (targetm.memmodel_check)
> +val = targetm.memmodel_check (val);
> + else if (val & ~MEMMODEL_MASK)
> +
> +{
Incorrect vertical whitespace.
> + if ( (failure & MEMMODEL_MASK) == MEMMODEL_RELEASE
> + || (failure & MEMMODEL_MASK) == MEM
Hello guys,
After conversation in IRC with Richard, I've slightly updated the patch.
1. According to Richards suggestion I moved PTA_HLE to `generic` march.
2. Applied and updated Andi's patch (see [1]).
3. Updated tests to use proper memory model combintations
4. Added 1-sentense description to ex
> Otherwise, OK as far as x86 is concerned, but you will need separate
> approval for middle-end part.
Hi guys, this is a ping
Could anybody from middle-end please have a look?
Thanks, K
> My only other comment is that I think the MEMMODEL_MASK ought to be defined
> globally where the MEMMODEL enum is defined instead of defining it
> everywhere it is needed.
Agree. Done (along with Uros's input).
New define added to gcc/coretypes.h
Updated patch attached.
updated ChangeLog entry
Thanks!
K
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
>> Folks,
>> Thanks a lot for prompts!
>> I've updated my patch, so cmparing to previous it is:
>> - have dedicated hook var, to define target dep. bits in mem model.
>> Che
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Folks,
> Thanks a lot for prompts!
> I've updated my patch, so cmparing to previous it is:
> - have dedicated hook var, to define target dep. bits in mem model.
> Check (and warning) is performed in get_memmodel
> - prefix emit performed t
On 04/19/2012 11:21 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
+++ b/gcc/builtins.c
@@ -5338,6 +5338,7 @@ static enum memmodel
get_memmodel (tree exp)
{
rtx op;
+ unsigned memmodel_mask = (1<<16) - 1;
<...>
@@ -5398,11 +5409,14 @@ expand_builtin_atomic_compare_exchange (enum
machine_mode mode, tree exp,
Folks,
Thanks a lot for prompts!
I've updated my patch, so cmparing to previous it is:
- have dedicated hook var, to define target dep. bits in mem model.
Check (and warning) is performed in get_memmodel
- prefix emit performed through dedicated operand type (%K)
Updated ChangeLog entry:
2012
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:16:02PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > In any case, I think it ought to check that the 16 reserved bits for memory
> > model is correct (like it use to for the whole enum), and if it isn't, issue
> > the warning and mask in SEQ_CST for the memory model portion.
> Good po
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Stupid mailer.. sigh. trying again:
>
>
> On 04/18/2012 05:36 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
>> op = expand_normal (exp);
>> - if (INTVAL (op) < 0 || INTVAL (op) >= MEMMODEL_LAST)
>> + if (INTVAL (op) < 0)
>> {
>> warning (OPT_Win
Sure, thanks for prompt!
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
>> Hello guys,
>> Since there is no more objections to my RFC, started here [1],
>> I've implemented rest __atomic builtins in the same way.
>> It corresponds
Stupid mailer.. sigh. trying again:
On 04/18/2012 05:36 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
op = expand_normal (exp);
- if (INTVAL (op) < 0 || INTVAL (op) >= MEMMODEL_LAST)
+ if (INTVAL (op) < 0)
{
warning (OPT_Winvalid_memory_model,
"invalid memory model argument to builtin"
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello guys,
> Since there is no more objections to my RFC, started here [1],
> I've implemented rest __atomic builtins in the same way.
> It corresponds to Spec, which can be found here [2].
Can you please implement printing of HLE prefix w
Whoops, thank you. I'll fix it
K
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Kirill Yukhin writes:
>
>> Forgot to attach the patch :)
>
> Just a nit: you're using `prefixies' throughout the patch. I guess this
> should be `prefixes' instead.
>
> Rainer
>
> --
> ---
Kirill Yukhin writes:
> Forgot to attach the patch :)
Just a nit: you're using `prefixies' throughout the patch. I guess this
should be `prefixes' instead.
Rainer
--
-
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, B
Forgot to attach the patch :)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello guys,
> Since there is no more objections to my RFC, started here [1],
> I've implemented rest __atomic builtins in the same way.
> It corresponds to Spec, which can be found here [2].
>
> Patch attached.
Hello guys,
Since there is no more objections to my RFC, started here [1],
I've implemented rest __atomic builtins in the same way.
It corresponds to Spec, which can be found here [2].
Patch attached.
ChangeLog entry:
2012-04-18 Kirill Yukhin
* builtins.c (get_memmodel): Remove check
19 matches
Mail list logo
