On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 04:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Bernd Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Still, I feel uncomfortable about making a promise we don't really expect
>>> to
>>> fully keep yet, so I would prefer
On 01/27/2016 04:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Still, I feel uncomfortable about making a promise we don't really expect to
fully keep yet, so I would prefer this option to be undocumented for now. I
won't object if someone else wants to a
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> Still, I feel uncomfortable about making a promise we don't really expect to
> fully keep yet, so I would prefer this option to be undocumented for now. I
> won't object if someone else wants to approve it as a normal option however.
Are y
On 01/27/2016 02:59 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
+This option is disabled by default for most languages, enabled by
+default for languages that use garbage collection.
This is not true as of this patch.
Yes. As I said elsewhere, my intent is to do that as a separate patch.
Then the followu
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> +This option is disabled by default for most languages, enabled by
>> +default for languages that use garbage collection.
>
>
> This is not true as of this patch.
Yes. As I said elsewhere, my intent is to do that as a separate patch.
>>
+This option is disabled by default for most languages, enabled by
+default for languages that use garbage collection.
This is not true as of this patch.
Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (revision
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> Is the patch missing some logic to make the option be enabled by default
> for gc-using languages? (presumably go, and maybe java?)
I am intentionally leaving that to a separate patch, yes. I think
this option is useful by itself for C/C
On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 05:35 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
> Index: common.opt
> ===
> --- common.opt (revision 232580)
> +++ common.opt (working copy)
> @@ -1380,6 +1380,10 @@
> Enable hoisting adjacent loads to encourage ge
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
>>> On 01/23/2016 12:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
2016-01-22 Ian Lance Taylor
* common.opt (fkeep-gc-roots-live): New option.
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (add_candidate_1): If
-fkeep-gc-roots-live, skip pointers
On 01/25/2016 05:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 01/23/2016 12:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
2016-01-22 Ian Lance Taylor
* common.opt (fkeep-gc-roots-live): New option.
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (add_candidate_1): If
-fkeep-gc-roots-
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/23/2016 12:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> 2016-01-22 Ian Lance Taylor
>>
>> * common.opt (fkeep-gc-roots-live): New option.
>> * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (add_candidate_1): If
>> -fkeep-gc-roots-live, skip pointers.
>> (add_iv_can
On 01/23/2016 12:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
2016-01-22 Ian Lance Taylor
* common.opt (fkeep-gc-roots-live): New option.
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (add_candidate_1): If
-fkeep-gc-roots-live, skip pointers.
(add_iv_candidate_for_biv): Handle add_candidate_1 returning
NULL.
* doc/invoke.texi
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
>
> I think these option descriptions are supposed to end in a period.
Thanks for the doc comments; will fix before submitting if the overall
patch is approved.
Ian
On 01/22/2016 12:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Index: common.opt
===
--- common.opt (revision 232580)
+++ common.opt (working copy)
@@ -1380,6 +1380,10 @@
Enable hoisting adjacent loads to encourage generating conditional move
i
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 08:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Updated patch.
>>
>> I've verified that I'm changing the only relevant place in
>> tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c that creates a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, so I do think
>> that this is the only changed
On 01/22/2016 08:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Updated patch.
I've verified that I'm changing the only relevant place in
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c that creates a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, so I do think
that this is the only changed to fix the problem for ivopts.
I don't think so. One of the problems wi
Updated patch.
I've verified that I'm changing the only relevant place in
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c that creates a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, so I do think
that this is the only changed to fix the problem for ivopts.
OK for mainline?
Ian
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-01-22 Ian Lance Taylor
* common.opt (fkeep-
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00023.html , the
>>> Go frontend needs some way to prevent ivo
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00023.html , the
>> Go frontend needs some way to prevent ivopts from temporarily removing
>> all pointers into a memory block
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00023.html , the
> Go frontend needs some way to prevent ivopts from temporarily removing
> all pointers into a memory block. This patch adds a new option
> -fcollectible-pointers whic
As discussed at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00023.html , the
Go frontend needs some way to prevent ivopts from temporarily removing
all pointers into a memory block. This patch adds a new option
-fcollectible-pointers which makes that happen. This is not the best
way to solve the proble
21 matches
Mail list logo
