Open optimization repository updated

Hi all, Just wanted to mention that we updated Collective Optimization Database with various optimization cases (for Intel and AMD processors at the moment) for multiple benchmarks such as EEMBC, SPEC2006, etc and started collecting data from several users to compare different compilers includ

New Interactive Compilation Interface (ICI) v2.0 has been released

Dear all, We just finished and released the new Interactive Compilation Interface v2.0 for GCC 4.4.0, based on the official GCC 4.4.0 release code. Full source code, documentation and a variety of plugin examples are available on the cTuning.org website at http://ctuning.org/ici and http://ctuning

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

Hi guys, Just saw this discussion so wanted to mention that we at HiPEAC are now interested to use both GCC as static compiler and LLVM as run-time infrastructure for research and several colleagues wanted to port ICI framework (the recent release is based on the "official" gcc plugin branch) to

VTA merge?

It's been a very long time since I started working in the var-tracking-assignments branch. It is finally approaching a state in which I'm comfortable enough to propose that it be integrated. Alas, it's not quite finished yet and, unless it is merged, it might very well never be. New differences

Re: VTA merge?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > It's been a very long time since I started working in the > var-tracking-assignments branch.  It is finally approaching a state in > which I'm comfortable enough to propose that it be integrated. > > Alas, it's not quite finished yet and, u

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

Hello, I am interested in developing LLVM functionality to support the interfaces in GCC ICI. I plan to spend some time to investigate feasibility in a couple of weeks time once all exam boards are finished. My initial goal would be to enable LLVM to be used for iterative compilation using the H

Re: VTA merge?

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > testsuite-guality (16K) - (still small) debug info quality testsuite Has this been reworked as per my previous comments to use DejaGnu interfaces to execute the debugger and test programs so that any

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Nisbet wrote: > Hello, > I am interested in developing LLVM functionality to support the interfaces in > GCC ICI. *sigh* GCC != LLVM. And this is a GCC list. Can LLVM topics please be discussed on an LLVM mailing list? Ciao! Steven

Re: VTA merge?

On Jun 5, 2009, Richard Guenther wrote: > So if I understand the above right then VTA is a new source of > code-generation differences with -g vs. -g0. It was, but that was before I spent several months stopping it from being it ;-) And once VTA is on and bootstrap-debug is the rule rather tha

[ANN] ForestGOMP 0.1, a libgomp-compatible OpenMP run-time

Hello, We are pleased to announce the release of ForestGOMP 0.1, a libgomp-compatible OpenMP 2.5 run-time support library targeting high-performance computing. http://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/22409/forestgomp-0.1.tar.gz SHA1: 18cb967cc21ee9effc3e4b3b2ee59ef838247a6a More information

Re: VTA merge?

On Jun 5, 2009, "Joseph S. Myers" wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> testsuite-guality (16K) - (still small) debug info quality testsuite > Has this been reworked as per my previous comments Sorry, no, I didn't complete the rework, although I made some changes towards that

Re: VTA merge?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun  5, 2009, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> So if I understand the above right then VTA is a new source of >> code-generation differences with -g vs. -g0. > > It was, but that was before I spent several months stopping it from > being it

Re: VTA merge?

I thought a number of people had concerns that VTA was too expensive and disruptive for the perceived benefit. David

i370 port

Hello GCC maintainers. There used to be an i370 target for GCC. It was written in 1989, and put into GCC 2.5 in 1993. It has always been semi-working, but never good enough to actually use. It was dropped from GCC 4 when there was supposedly no maintainer available. Actually, Dave Pitts and m

Re: i370 port

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Paul Edwards wrote: > It was dropped from GCC 4 when there was supposedly no > maintainer available. Actually, Dave Pitts and myself were > both maintaining it at that time, but we were both still working > on an old version of it (3.2). So gcc 3.4.6, circa 2004, was the > las

Re: [RFC] enabling -fshow-column by default

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:09:57AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > 2009/5/20 Aldy Hernandez: > >> > >> My only worry is that the testsuite may confuse column and line > >> numbers and pass/fail tests because of it. > > > > Janis has a patch for the testsuite to handle all this. > > I'm seeing exac

Re: i370 port

We were both maintaining it, and continue to maintain it, because MVS doesn't have any alternate free C compiler available. To merge back into FSF GCC, the people who have made changes that would be merged back will need to have copyright assignments on file at the FSF (and disclaimers from any

Re: i370 port

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Paul Edwards wrote: > The port is to a pure C90 environment (ie not posix, not unix). It was a > major effort to achieve that, and it has only just been completed to the > point where the compiler recompiles itself with full optimization. The > environment where it runs is no

New Toshiba Media Processor (mep-elf) port and maintainer

As everyone here surely has seen, DJ Delorie has been submitting a new port for the Toshiba Media Processor (mep-elf) and done a number of adjustments based on feedback already. Pending initial (technical) approval the steering committee welcomes this new port and is happy to appoint DJ as maintai

Re: i370 port

Paul Edwards wrote: > In addition, that code has been ported to GCC 3.4.6, which is now > working as a cross-compiler at least. It's still some months away > from working natively though. It takes a lot of effort to convert > the Posix-expecting GCC compiler into C90 compliance. This has > been

Re: i370 port

The port is to a pure C90 environment (ie not posix, not unix). It was a major effort to achieve that, and it has only just been completed to the point where the compiler recompiles itself with full optimization. The environment where it runs is not set up to run shell scripts or makes or test s

Expanding a load instruction

Dear all, In the instruction set of my architecture, the offsets of a half-load (HImode) have to be multiples of 2. However, if I set up a structure in a certain way, the compiler will generate: (mem/s/j:HI (plus:DI (reg:DI 134 [ ivtmp.23 ]) (const_int 1 [0x1])) [0 .geno+0 S2 A16]) As th

Re: Expanding a load instruction

fearyourself wrote: > In the instruction set of my architecture, the offsets of a half-load > (HImode) have to be multiples of 2. However, if I set up a structure > in a certain way, the compiler will generate: > > (mem/s/j:HI (plus:DI (reg:DI 134 [ ivtmp.23 ]) > (const_int 1 [0x1])) [0 .

Re: i370 port

Wow, what a lot of responses. Last time I tried making contact, I didn't get a single response! In addition, that code has been ported to GCC 3.4.6, which is now working as a cross-compiler at least. It's still some months away from working natively though. It takes a lot of effort to convert

Re: i370 port

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > I understand current GCC supports various source and target character > sets a lot better out of the box, so it may be EBCDIC isn't even an > issue any more. If there are other problems related to MVS host I think the EBCDIC support is largely theoret

Re: i370 port

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Paul Edwards wrote: > > There is no need for the target to be able to run shell scripts or makes. > > You would need to write your own DejaGnu board file that deals with copying > > to/from the i370 system and running programs there. The testsuite routinely > > runs for much m

Re: i370 port

On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 01:39:07AM +1000, Paul Edwards wrote: >> I understand current GCC supports various source and target character >> sets a lot better out of the box, so it may be EBCDIC isn't even an >> issue any more. > > It looks that way from what I've seen of 3.4.6 so far. However, I > w

Re: New Toshiba Media Processor (mep-elf) port and maintainer

Thanks!

Re: i370 port

I understand current GCC supports various source and target character sets a lot better out of the box, so it may be EBCDIC isn't even an issue any more. If there are other problems related to MVS host I think the EBCDIC support is largely theoretical and not tested on any actual EBCDIC host (

Re: i370 port

I understand current GCC supports various source and target character sets a lot better out of the box, so it may be EBCDIC isn't even an issue any more. It looks that way from what I've seen of 3.4.6 so far. However, I won't know for sure until it's on the host and self-generating. Why are y

Re: "plugin"-ifying the MELT branch.

> "Basile" == Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes: Basile> Can a branch be simply a plugin, or should I close (soon) the Basile> melt-branch and start a melt-plugin-branch on the SVN. If I do that, Basile> do I need some authorization? from whom? I think what you do on your branch is up to you. If

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Nisbet wrote: Hello, I am interested in developing LLVM functionality to support the interfaces in GCC ICI. *sigh* GCC != LLVM. And this is a GCC list. Can LLVM topics please be discussed on an L

Re: [RFC] enabling -fshow-column by default

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 10:37 -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:09:57AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > 2009/5/20 Aldy Hernandez: > > >> > > >> My only worry is that the testsuite may confuse column and line > > >> numbers and pass/fail tests because of it. > > > > > > Janis

Re: VTA merge?

On Jun 5, 2009, David Edelsohn wrote: > I thought a number of people had concerns that VTA was too expensive > and disruptive for the perceived benefit. There were such concerns, indeed. All we knew back then was that there was room for a lot of improvement in the quality of debug information,

Re: i370 port

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Paul Edwards wrote: > 3.4.6 made some revamps to the i370 port (compared to 3.2.3), and I > need to make sure those changes have been digested, and no code > has been lost, so that I can pick up the final i370 port and move it. But there were probably also (mechanical) changes

Re: i370 port

3.4.6 made some revamps to the i370 port (compared to 3.2.3), and I need to make sure those changes have been digested, and no code has been lost, so that I can pick up the final i370 port and move it. But there were probably also (mechanical) changes to the port between when 3.4 branched (long

Re: [RFC] enabling -fshow-column by default

2009/6/5 Janis Johnson: > > I think the libstdc++ testsuite doesn't use the overrides for dg-error > and friends and so isn't handling the column numbers in the new way. > I'll take a look, but it might be awhile before I get to it. Thanks, Janis. I have added -fno-show-column to libstdc++-v3/scri

Re: [RFC] enabling -fshow-column by default

2009/6/5 Aldy Hernandez: > > Which test is this? Can you send it to me? It tests a header that isn't checked in yet, so sending the test alone wouldn't help much :) I'll try to come up with a self-contained example tomorrow. Jonathan

Re: VTA merge?

> > We can measure some of these things now.  Some can even be measured > objectively ;-) Do you have any of them handy (memory use, compile time with release checking only, etc) so that we can start the public argument^H^H^H^H^H^discussion? ;)

Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Nisbet wrote: > >> Hello, > >> I am interested in developing LLVM functionality to support the > >> interfaces in GCC ICI. On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > GCC != LLVM. And this is a GCC list. Can LLVM topics please be > > discussed

Machine Description Template?

Is there a machine description template in the gcc file source tree? If there is also template for the 'C header file of macro definitions' that would be good to know too. I did a file search for '.md' and there are tons of examples. Although, I was curious if there was a generic template

Re: Machine Description Template?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Graham Reitz wrote: > > Is there a machine description template in the gcc file source tree? There is no template as such but you could look at existing ports for the basic templates. Google should give you results for previous questions on this list regarding new

Re: Machine Description Template?

I've found the MMIX port to be a good place to start. It's a bit old but the archtecture is nice and simple and the implementation nice and brief. Watch out though as it is a pure 64 bit machine - you'll need to think SI every time you see DI. The trick past there is to compare the significant f

Re: Machine Description Template?

Excellent! Thanks Ramana and Michael. I have been working through sections 16 & 17 of the gccint.info document and also read through Hans' 'Porting GCC for Dunces'. He sure wasn't kidding mentioning you would need to read them several times. graham On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Michael H

Re: Machine Description Template?

Graham Reitz wrote: Is there a machine description template in the gcc file source tree? If there is also template for the 'C header file of macro definitions' that would be good to know too. I did a file search for '.md' and there are tons of examples. Although, I was curious if there was

sched2, ret, use, and VLIW bundling

I'm working on a VLIW coprocessor for MeP. One thing I noticed is that sched2 won't bundle the function's RET with the insn that sets the return value register, apparently because there's an intervening USE of that register (insn 30 in the example below). Is there any way around this? The retur