RFC: Simplify rules for ctz/clz patterns and RTL

2007-08-10 Thread Zack Weinberg
During development of the patch I just posted for double-word clz, I went through all the back ends and audited their use of the bit-scan named patterns and RTL. It appears to me that our current handling of C[LT]Z_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is much more complicated than it needs to be, and also that

Re: reload question

2007-08-10 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Pat Haugen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm looking into a few cases where we're still getting the base/index > operand ordering wrong on PowerPC for an indexed load/store instruction, > even after the PTR_PLUS merge and fix for PR28690. One of the cases I > observed was caused by reload picking

gcc-4.3-20070810 is now available

2007-08-10 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070810 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070810/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: [RFC] Migrate pointers to members to the middle end

2007-08-10 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dan> Just to be clear, we *already* have the class hierarchies in the Dan> middle end. Dan> They have been there for a few years now :) Good point, thanks. I don't think that is enough though, because I don't think the BINFO slots mean th

reload question

2007-08-10 Thread Pat Haugen
I'm looking into a few cases where we're still getting the base/index operand ordering wrong on PowerPC for an indexed load/store instruction, even after the PTR_PLUS merge and fix for PR28690. One of the cases I observed was caused by reload picking r0 to use for the base reg opnd as a result of

Re: [RFC] Migrate pointers to members to the middle end

2007-08-10 Thread Mark Mitchell
Ollie Wild wrote: > Offhand, I don't remember what happened with the various other cases, > but my testing at the time wasn't particularly thorough. The feedback > I've gotten so far seems overwhelmingly negative, so I think the next > step is to revisit the lowering approach, exercise the hell o

Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)

2007-08-10 Thread Diego Novillo
On 8/10/07 9:49 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > Zadeck has the parloop branch patches [ ... ] Sorry, I meant Zdenek.

Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)

2007-08-10 Thread Diego Novillo
On 8/9/07 6:19 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2 > that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments > re. timing for Stage 3? Zadeck has the parloop branch patches, which I've been reviewing. I am not sure how many other

Re: [RFC] Migrate pointers to members to the middle end

2007-08-10 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Tom Tromey wrote: Michael> Yes, devirtualization. But I wonder if you really need class Michael> hierarchies for this (actually I'm fairly sure you don't). However, I'm not sure I agree with the above assertion. Specifically, for Java I think it is sometimes possible

Re: mips gcc -O1: Address exception error on store doubleword

2007-08-10 Thread Andrew Haley
Alex Gonzalez writes: > Hi, trying to come up with a testcase we figured out what the problem could > be. > > When the optimizer is on and memcpy sees that it is copying a > struct with double words in it, it will assume that the struct > starts on an 8 byte boundary and use double word loa

Re: mips gcc -O1: Address exception error on store doubleword

2007-08-10 Thread Alex Gonzalez
Hi, trying to come up with a testcase we figured out what the problem could be. When the optimizer is on and memcpy sees that it is copying a struct with double words in it, it will assume that the struct starts on an 8 byte boundary and use double word loads and stores. This is a safe assumption,

RE: Very Fast: Directly Coded Lexical Analyzer

2007-08-10 Thread Dave Korn
On 10 August 2007 12:49, Robert Dewar wrote: On 01 June 2007 11:27, Ronny Peine wrote: >> Hi, >> >> my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm? > To me, very fast (millions of lines a second) lexical analyzers are > trivial to write by hand, I think you need one to lex

Re: Very Fast: Directly Coded Lexical Analyzer

2007-08-10 Thread Robert Dewar
Ronny Peine wrote: Hi, my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm? The Thomson Algorithm creates an epsilon-NFA which needs quite a lot of memory. The element construction creates an NFA directly and therefor has fewer states. Well, this is only interesting in the scanner

Re: GCC "make" errors

2007-08-10 Thread Tim Prince
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I wanted update my GCC compiler to 4.2.1 to install an updated version of C libraries (glibc) and it is giving me errors while it is making the build. I type ./configure which works fine but when I type "make" it runs fine until it starts to give errors which are

GCC "make" errors

2007-08-10 Thread mandeep singh bhambra
Hi, I wanted update my GCC compiler to 4.2.1 to install an updated version of C libraries (glibc) and it is giving me errors while it is making the build. I type ./configure which works fine but when I type "make" it runs fine until it starts to give errors which are as follows: /tmp/ccacyMlE.