In regmove.c there is function replace_in_call_usage called in
fixup_match_1,
It replaces dst register by src in call_insn, I suspect whether it is
necessary Since comment of CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE says that no pseudo
register can appear in it and seems src is pseudo register.
further
Hi,
I found that sometimes -fno-tree-dominator-opts will bring a big speed
promotion. This is because that pass_dominator tries to thread jumps.
But sometimes this will cause that the loop's exit bb does not
dominator its latch bb again. Then pass_complete_unroll is unable to
know the exact
I propose that we merge Mickael Pettersson's patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00450.html
to have a functional arm-linux port of GNAT in GCC 4.5.
This would yield an Ada compiler with a clean testsuite:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg00419.html
Although
On 01/05/2010 01:15 AM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:17:00PM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com writes:
On 01/03/2010 10:14 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com writes:
6.3.2.3
A pointer to an object or incomplete type may be
On 01/05/2010 02:09 AM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Erik Trulsson ertr1013 at student.uu.se writes:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:17:00PM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
The text you quoted does not contain any shall not language about
dereferencing, so this conclusion does not follow.
It doesn't have
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Eric Fisher joefoxr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I found that sometimes -fno-tree-dominator-opts will bring a big speed
promotion. This is because that pass_dominator tries to thread jumps.
But sometimes this will cause that the loop's exit bb does not
dominator
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 15:42 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
Hi
In function arm_load_pic_register in file arm.c there are following code:
if (TARGET_ARM)
{
...
}
else if (TARGET_THUMB2)
{
/* Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the
This message describes problems with how GCC presently handles
multilib selection, and proposes changes (at least some hopefully to
be implemented for GCC 4.6) to fix some of those problems; please let
me know any comments on these proposals.
In summary, multilibs are selected using textual
This discussion prompts me to relate something from
experience in exegesis of the Ada RM.
In Robert's rules of order, there is an overriding
rule that says none of the other rules in this book
can be used to obfuscate [don't have my copy here,
so not an exact quote].
Following that line of
In summary, multilibs are selected using textual matching of options
whose logic is largely independent of that used in the compiler proper
(cc1) to determine what options are enabled when compiling.
This has been an annoyance I've had with multilib processing for a long
time, so I'm very
hi...
i am new to this list.
i am trying to something like:
struct Ramp
{
float phase;
inline float process() { return phase++; }
} ramp;
void fill_buffer( float *buf, size_t nframes )
{
for( size_t i=0; inframes; i++ )
buf[i] = ramp.process()
}
the goal is
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
hi...
i am new to this list.
i am trying to something like:
struct Ramp
{
float phase;
inline float process() { return phase++; }
} ramp;
void fill_buffer( float *buf, size_t nframes )
{
for( size_t i=0;
Kaufen sie direkt und ver-gessen sie Ihre Entaeuschungen und alle Aengste
die Sie haben.
- Lieferung kostenfrei
- ohne Zollprobleme
- sicher online shoppen.
- Wirkstoffe rein pflanzlich
- diskret verpackt
Nicht mehr zufrueh im Bett abspritzen und das Maedchen enttaeuschen!
Oder andere
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
__restrict__ is of no help here. which leads me to the question whats
the point of a restricted this pointer ? members of structs arent
unaliased by a __restrict__
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for user code (they
have been historically used from Frontends). If restrict doesn't work
for you (do you have a
On 1/4/10 14:57 , sandeep soni wrote:
I want to know what is the entry point to the gimplification pass? and
given a function body which are the functions in the gcc source that
convert the body into equivalent gimple statements?
This is controlled from the callgraph manager. You need to
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
expression that has one of the following types:
but
(union u*)i
is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
behaviour. You may only dereference
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for user code (they
have been historically used from
On 01/05/2010 03:23 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
expression that has one of the following types:
but
(union u*)i
is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
expression that has one of the following types:
but
(union u*)i
is not a legal lvalue expression because the
On 2010-01-05 15:30:11 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
expression that has one of the following types:
but
(union
On 2010-01-05 15:29:25 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/05/2010 03:23 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
expression that has one of the following types:
but
(union u*)i
is
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-01-05 15:30:11 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
expression that has one of
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Matt m...@use.net wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx doesn't
bitrot too much.
Wasn't that branch already merged to trunk?
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh torb...@gmx.de wrote:
The -fno-alias-X things do not
torbenh wrote:
can you please explain, why you reject the idea of -fnoalias ?
msvc has declspec(noalias) icc has -fnoalias
msvc needs it because it doesn't implement restrict and supports
violation of typed aliasing rules as a default. ICL needs it for msvc
compatibility, but has better
Quoting Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
I've attached what I have so far.
If you want to have documentation extracted from source files, you need to
engage with the SC and FSF at an early stage to get suitable license
exception wording to
On 01/05/10 01:46, Eric Fisher wrote:
Hi,
I found that sometimes -fno-tree-dominator-opts will bring a big speed
promotion. This is because that pass_dominator tries to thread jumps.
But sometimes this will cause that the loop's exit bb does not
dominator its latch bb again. Then
Matt m...@use.net writes:
I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx
doesn't bitrot too much. I ran into this issue, and an unsure how to
fix it without really ugly casting:
enum df_changeable_flags
df_set_flags (enum df_changeable_flags changeable_flags)
{
enum
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
Is that option regularly tested?
Will it ever become the default?
NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
Is that option regularly tested?
Probably not.
I've updated the Microblaze branch to gcc-4.5.
It has passed gcc regression tests reasonably well.
I still have some minor cleanup to do -- updating
copyright notices, checking indents, and so forth.
What's the best process for merging this into head?
Should I submit a patch?
--
Michael Eager
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com wrote:
--with is wrong for this. It's not about the ambient system built against.
It's a feature selection for how you build binutils, which means --enable.
Here is the updated patch.
I'm
Robert Dewar dewar at adacore.com writes:
In any case the gcc interpretation is clearly what's
intended in my view, so if it can be argued that the
standard is inconsistent with this interpretation (I
am unconvinced that this burden has been met), then
the conclusion is to add a clarification
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt m...@use.net writes:
I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx
doesn't bitrot too much. I ran into this issue, and an unsure how to
fix it without really ugly casting:
enum df_changeable_flags
df_set_flags (enum
Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com writes:
but
(union u*)i
is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
behaviour.
Your example does not contain a dereference.
You may only dereference a pointer as permitted by 6.3.2.3.
6.3.2.3 does not mention dereferencing at all;
On 01/05/2010 07:58 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com writes:
but
(union u*)i
is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
behaviour.
Your example does not contain a dereference.
You may only dereference a pointer as permitted by
On 2010-01-05 16:16:52 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
6.3.2.3 says that one can *convert* the pointer, but not that one can
*dereference* it.
You can dereference it if it is defined where (to what object of the
relevant type) it points, and no
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
missing?
It covers the first step by letting you run ld.bfd or ld.gold to
choose. Having the
Matt m...@use.net writes:
Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
--enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
option would be to break up the enum values into indivdual #defines
and
On 2010-01-05 20:50:38 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/05/2010 07:58 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com writes:
but
(union u*)i
is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
behaviour.
Your example does not contain a dereference.
On 01/05/2010 07:38 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Robert Dewar dewar at adacore.com writes:
In any case the gcc interpretation is clearly what's
intended in my view, so if it can be argued that the
standard is inconsistent with this interpretation (I
am unconvinced that this burden has been
Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com writes:
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
missing?
It covers the first step by letting you run
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com writes:
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
runtime. I don't see how this patch supports
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt m...@use.net writes:
Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
--enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
option would be to break up
Hello,
we are a small team and would need your help,just click and you've already
helped.We thanks in advance.
Look at our website:
http://www.fleaser.com
Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/fleaser
Send this message to your friends and help us.
Thanks for your help!
Greetings
On 2010-01-05 21:29:22 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On the contrary, you haven't even addressed the core issue. 6.3.2.3
limits the pointer conversions that you may do without undefined
behaviour. The conversion in your example displays undefined
behaviour, since it is not permitted by 6.3.2.3.
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com writes:
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
Matt m...@use.net writes:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt m...@use.net writes:
Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
--enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100105 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100105/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories
with the name ld. Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option.
I don't know which approach is best.
I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual
binaries are available as ld.bfd and ld.gold. If
On 05.01.2010 23:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
H.J. Luhjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylori...@google.com wrote:
Roland McGrathrol...@redhat.com writes:
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one
On 05.01.2010 23:59, Roland McGrath wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
missing?
It covers the first step by letting you
Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com writes:
Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories
with the name ld. Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option.
I don't know which approach is best.
I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual
why not make this more explicit by adding an option --ldld which is
directly understood by the gcc driver?
Feel free to send some gcc patches. I see no point in this.
We have -Wl.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 05:01:24PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
why not make this more explicit by adding an option --ldld which is
directly understood by the gcc driver?
Feel free to send some gcc patches. I see no point in this.
We have -Wl.
I deal with a lot of host systems where
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:46:48AM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
The aliasing policies that GCC implements seem to be more strict than
what is in the C99 standard. I am wondering if this is true or whether
I am mistaken (I am not an expert on the standard, so the latter is
definitely
Erik Trulsson ertr1013 at student.uu.se writes:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:46:48AM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
The aliasing policies that GCC implements seem to be more strict than
what is in the C99 standard. I am wondering if this is true or whether
I am mistaken (I am not an expert on
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 407ab59..b349633 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -311,10 +311,11 @@ esac
# Handle --enable-gold.
Erik Trulsson wrote:
Moreover I think you are misinterpreting 6.5 clause 7 (which I concede is
fairly easy since it is not quite as unambiguous as one could wish).
I believe that paragraph should not be interpreted as automatically allowing
all accesses that correspond to one of the sorts
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 1/4/10 14:57 , sandeep soni wrote:
I want to know what is the entry point to the gimplification pass? and
given a function body which are the functions in the gcc source that
convert the body into equivalent gimple
Hi,
I am trying to port gcc-4.3.0 to a custom architecture. The high level
language selected is C.
The processor is a RISC processor and all the registers are of 32-bits wide.
The integer data type (SImode) is set as 32-bits.
I have already completed implementation to support integer data type
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 08:41 ---
Subject: Bug 42508
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 5 08:40:50 2010
New Revision: 155640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155640
Log:
PR tree-optimization/42508
* tree-sra.c
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 08:43 ---
Subject: Bug 42611
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 5 08:42:53 2010
New Revision: 155641
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155641
Log:
PR other/42611
* cfgexpand.c (expand_one_var):
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 08:56 ---
Subject: Bug 42611
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 5 08:56:30 2010
New Revision: 155642
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155642
Log:
PR other/42611
* cfgexpand.c (expand_one_var):
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 08:57 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 08:58 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #42 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2010-01-05 09:09 ---
So, it's enough to force alignment of reduce only (and to vectorize its loop)
to get wrong code. On the other hand, the result of the vectorized loop is
correct, and the problem is in choosing the correct index of
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 09:20 ---
See also
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/b128e5ed244a2516
Richard Maine thinks it is valid - and I also do not see (ad hoc) any reason
why it should be invalid.
--
burnus at
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 10:47 ---
Uh, of course.
_Don't use global register variables_
They are not supposed to be used for this kind of things and nobody spends
a single second to optimizing code generation for them - instead the most
difficult
As of 20100104 (rev. 155613), mainline failsto bootstrap on alpha-dec-osf4.0f
while compiling the stage3 libiberty/regex.o:
% /vol/gcc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20100104/4.0f-gcc/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/vol/gcc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20100104/4.0f-gcc/./prev-gcc/
-B/vol/gcc/alpha-dec-osf4.0f/bin/
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=19470)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19470action=view)
preprocessed input file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42619
--- Comment #2 from stubbs at icerasemi dot com 2010-01-05 11:14 ---
This code should do it:
---
extern void *malloc(int);
extern void abort(void);
extern void free(void *);
typedef struct SEntry
{
unsigned char num;
} TEntry;
typedef struct STable
{
TEntry data[2];
} TTable;
--- Comment #11 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-01-05 11:14 ---
nothing to do with gcc
--
t7 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:16 ---
The testcase works on i?86.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-01-05 11:25
---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] IMA is broken
See what I said in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00519.html
suggesting deprecating the implementation of -combine and keeping the
interface.
--
On the following test case compiled with GCC 4.4.1 release version and the
following command line
gcc -S -O2 -finline-functions-called-once -fdump-tree-all-details
-fdump-ipa-all fail.c
typedef struct SEntry
{
unsigned char num;
} TEntry;
typedef struct STable
{
TEntry data[2];
} TTable;
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-05
11:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage3 libiberty/regex.o on Tru64
UNIX: verify_ssa failed
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:16
---
The testcase works
--- Comment #3 from rahul at icerasemi dot com 2010-01-05 11:30 ---
*** Bug 42620 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42614
--- Comment #1 from rahul at icerasemi dot com 2010-01-05 11:30 ---
Accidentally added due to browser refresh. Bug is duplicate of PR42614.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42614 ***
--
rahul at icerasemi dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:31 ---
Somehow patched openSUSE GCC 4.3 is also affected.
bb 2:
# index_18 = VDEF index_17(D)
index = 0;
# index_21 = VDEF index_18
# SMT.57_22 = VDEF SMT.57_19(D)
# SMT.58_23 = VDEF SMT.58_20(D)
table_p_1 =
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:39 ---
Hm, I guess I'm the only one that is likely going to fix it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:40
---
Also happens at rev. 155544 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, with both -m32 and
-m64. -O3 -floop-block gives different results than -O3 alone (and is much
faster). Profiling should indicate what part of code is
--- Comment #6 from stubbs at icerasemi dot com 2010-01-05 11:41 ---
I can try and look into it if you give me some pointers. I can guarantee I
won't be able to fix it anywhere near as quickly as you though :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42614
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:42
---
Created an attachment (id=19471)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19471action=view)
Source file and input file
Compile induct.f90 and run with induct.in in the same directory.
--
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:43 ---
Combine is doing what it knows best (forming complicated instructions,
addressing modes in this case); to do this it is already damaging the nice
shape of the code after the tree optimizers, and synthesizing things like
--- Comment #2 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:43 ---
FWIW, I think this code is valid.
The A template parameter in typename identityA::type... is in a non-deduced
context, so it's argument should not be deduced from there. The argument of A
should be re-used from the
When compiling a program with computed goto:s with gcc 4.4.2 it runs
significantly slower (up to a factor 10) than when it is compiled with e.g. gcc
4.1/4.3 with the same optimization flags (-O2 or -O3). A small dummy test
program without header file dependencies is attached.
I am compiling with
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:57 ---
Shorter testcase, fails at -O2 -fno-early-inlining:
extern void abort(void);
typedef struct SEntry
{
int num;
} TEntry;
typedef struct STable
{
TEntry data[2];
} TTable;
TTable * __attribute__((noinline))
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:58 ---
Well, I'm sure it goes wrong in compute_flow_insensitive_aliasing - let me
have a quick look there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42614
This is just an internal reminder: we should implement the following suggestion
from Howard on the library reflector. Maybe Chris is interested...
/
I just recently became aware that it is possible to do this comparison without
any chance of overflow. This is accomplished by
--- Comment #3 from jon at beniston dot com 2010-01-05 12:13 ---
GCC 4.1.2 seems to produce the same code.
mov r2, #0
mov r3, r0
strbr2, [r3], #1
strbr2, [r0, #1]
add r0, r3, #2
@ lr needed for prologue
strbr2,
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 12:16 ---
Ok, it's simple. We add false aliases to index to both SMTs of SEntry and
STable because may_alias_p (SEntry, char) returns true as every alias-set
is a subset of alias-set zero.
But then when coming along to
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 12:20
---
Created an attachment (id=19472)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19472action=view)
patch
Testing on the application that originally failed appreciated.
--
--- Comment #11 from stubbs at icerasemi dot com 2010-01-05 12:23 ---
Thanks for your time and the extra quick fix! I'll do some testing with that
patch now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42614
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-01-05 12:29 ---
I got different error in the same place when configured with:
Target: alpha-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-svn/trunk/configure --host=alpha-linux-gnu
--build=alpha-linux-gnu --target=alpha-linux-gnu
--- Comment #12 from stubbs at icerasemi dot com 2010-01-05 12:32 ---
Your patch fixes our original application. Thanks again for your help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42614
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Keywords|
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 12:50 ---
There is a pass duplicate_computed_gotos that should take care of this. Why
does it not work in this case?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-05 12:56 ---
Profiling without -floop-block
+ 99.8%, start, a.out
| + 99.8%, main, a.out
| | + 99.8%, induct_, a.out
| | | + 77.5%, __mqc_m_MOD_mutual_ind_quad_cir_coil, a.out
| | | | 2.8%, cosisin, libSystem.B.dylib
| | | | -
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
