>
> You can get the RTL for these patterns when expanding stores like
>
> a = (b < c);
>
> In this case, GCC tries to avoid a conditional branch and (I suppose you are
> on GCC <4.5) instead of cmp and b you go through cmp and
> s. cmp does nothing but stashing away its operands, while
> s expan
This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code. The full
list of the accepted projects is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode.
Unfortunately, we could not accept all the proposals. But that should
not discourage folks from contributing, anyway. To increase chances
of acceptance f
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100427 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100427/
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
1) The back-and-forth is too much for casual contributors. If it is
more effort to do the legal work than to submit the first patch,
then they will never submit any patch at all.
Please do not exaggerate, if people have time for threads like these,
then they have time to send a short emai
People will always find reasons to complain, but most people (and
companies) seem to be happy with how the copyright assignments look
today.
On 27 April 2010 23:27, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> As for flexible, it seems clear that the current form is not
> sufficiently personalized, which makes it more difficult to get it
> signed by an employer.
>
> If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
> They are quite
> If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
> They are quite flexible, I do not know where people got the idea that
> they are not.
You're missing the point. If flexibilty isn't the DEFAULT people
won't know about it and will think it doesn't exist and complain. I
strongl
As for flexible, it seems clear that the current form is not
sufficiently personalized, which makes it more difficult to get it
signed by an employer.
If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
They are quite flexible, I do not know where people got the idea that
th
On 4/19/10 10:43 , Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 1) New API in libiberty for creating of hash tables and splay trees
> with user-specified callbacks for allocation. Needs libiberty
> maintainer review.
> 2) Make gengtype accept variable_size GTY option and output typed GC
> allocators to gtype-desc.h
On 27 April 2010 22:45, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via
> > email when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would
> > make things different.
>
> True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
> form
> That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via
> email when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would
> make things different.
True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
form could be filled out online without requiring a piece of
On 4/25/10 17:35 , Andi Hellmund wrote:
> I mainly kept an eye on item 7 (Browsing/dumping tools for LTO files),
> which seems for me to be a good task to deepen the knowledge about GCC
> internals.
I had some patches, but they are old now and won't apply. This would be
a very good thing to add.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 21:03, Mark Mielke wrote:
> They can take a copy of your code and modify it, but at no time does your
> original code become non-free. As long as people continue to copy from your
> "free" version of the code, they can continue to use it for "free".
>
> The GPL isn't free t
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
> object files are achived into static library files and the final
> binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
> with -flto and I can see all the lto related sections in .a fil
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via email
> when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would make things
> different.
True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
form could be filled out online without requir
> And how are potential contributors supposed to know this?
They're really not. The fundamental problem here is that this area of
the law is not only very complicated, but is really all guesswork
since there are few, if any, relevant cases. Moreover, this is an
area of the law whe
I've been following the discussion a bit about contributing, and find
myself here now even directly pointed at :-) As I mentioned, I am not very
experienced with GCC, for one thing I have not studied other ports very
much. To make a GCC patch for this problem to be generally handled is then
a bit
Looks good! Thanks!
By the way, I sent it to the HiPEAC mailing lists too ...
Cheers,
Grigori
-Original Message-
From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:lopeziba...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Grigori Fursin
Cc: Dorit Nuzman; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; erven.ro...@inria.fr; David
On 04/26/10 22:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Greg McGary writes:
I have a port without div or mod machine instructions. I wrote
divmodsi4 patterns that do the libcall directly, hoping that GCC would
recognize the opportunity to use a single divmodsi4 to compute both
quotient and remainder.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey
I want to say a quick thank you for accepting my proposal "Partial
Implementation of Python as a GCC Front-end".
Can't wait to get started :).
- --Phil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Moz
Hello,
I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
object files are achived into static library files and the final
binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
with -flto and I can see all the lto related sections in .a files.
Is this what is descri
On 27 April 2010 14:27, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I created the page on GCC Wiki with this info:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Research
>
> Please, feel free to update or rewrite completely
> (if you feel that something is wrong, etc)...
>
I think that a verbatim copy of the email seems
On 27/04/2010 08:17, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 02:16, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Here, sometimes it's easier to show than to explain in terms of rules:
>
> The wiki link has a template and an example. If you think it can be
> improved, please do so.
I hadn't even read it at that
redriver jiang writes:
> test3.c:27: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
> (insn 52 51 32 0 (parallel [
> (set (reg:HI 16 BASE0)
> (plus:HI (reg:HI 16 BASE0)
> (const_int -2 [0xfffe])))
> (clobber (scratch:QI))
> ]
On 04/27/2010 03:46 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is all relatively easily handled under the copyright policy on
the academic side of the house for students and faculty.
Unless it's "institutional work"... I was in the same boat during my
own Ph.D. studies, cherrypicking what to send for inclu
On 04/27/2010 11:42 AM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
Hi :
There is a pattern "define_insn "s_"" in mips md file, like
(define_insn "s_"
[(set (match_operand:CC 0 "register_operand" "=z")
(swapped_fcond:CC (match_operand:SCALARF 1 "register_operand" "f")
(match_operand:
Hi.
Right now I know confused by the usage of "clobber "match_scratch"".
The scene is as follows:
1.Target cpu is with only a 8 bit ACC register( but I make 16 virtual
registers, for reload problems).
2.For HImode operands, I let them never to goto ACC combined with
other virtual registers.
3.
Hi all,
I created the page on GCC Wiki with this info:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Research
Please, feel free to update or rewrite completely
(if you feel that something is wrong, etc)...
Hope it will be of any use ;) ...
Cheers,
Grigori
-Original Message-
From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [m
> To stay US-centric, have a look at:
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
>
> Any law that makes something illegal has to define the available
> penalties associated.
You are confusing criminal and civil law. What you say is certainly true
for criminal law, where the other party i
Hi :
There is a pattern "define_insn "s_"" in mips md file, like
(define_insn "s_"
[(set (match_operand:CC 0 "register_operand" "=z")
(swapped_fcond:CC (match_operand:SCALARF 1 "register_operand" "f")
(match_operand:SCALARF 2 "register_operand" "f")))]
""
"c
> and read much more detailed release notes here:
> http://llvm.org/releases/2.7/docs/ReleaseNotes.html
The correct writing of GCC is "GCC", all capitalized. In particular "gcc-4.5"
should be written GCC 4.5 (like LLVM 2.7).
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi All,
For anyone interested, LLVM 2.7 was just released. You can read the
announcement here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2010-April/34.html
and read much more detailed release notes here:
http://llvm.org/releases/2.7/docs/ReleaseNotes.html
In addition to a huge assor
Hi,
I have looked a bit more and tried also ia-64 and bfin and actually I
can't find a single example where vectorized code using __restrict__
variables would break the dependency between stores and loads.
for this simple program:
unsigned short xxx(unsigned short* __restrict__ a, unsigned short
[trimming Cc list]
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble understanding how
I could demonstrate personal loss making the law suit worth persuing in
the first place.
Perhaps because you know the code better than anyone else, so you
could provide paid support on that derivative as well.
On 27 April 2010 02:16, Dave Korn wrote:
> Here, sometimes it's easier to show than to explain in terms of rules:
The wiki link has a template and an example. If you think it can be
improved, please do so.
> Summary: Asterisks are only used for the first line of each file's changes.
> TABs at
35 matches
Mail list logo
