On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Florian Weimer wrote:
I wonder if we should give up and make -fwrapv the default.
My sense is that there are not that many of these integer bugs, and
probably all of them are simple to fix. Best to just fix them and then
run a tool like ours every now and then to see if a
On 8/8/2010 10:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
All,
Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
- Rick C. Hodgin
I don't know how you get along without a search engine. What about
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Assembly-HOWTO/g
All,
Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
- Rick C. Hodgin
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20100808 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20100808/
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/branches
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 12:00:47PM -0500, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:30, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> > I like backtraces.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, you will be able to use --enable-frame-pointer configure option.
> >>
> >> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02034.html
>
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:30, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > I like backtraces.
>> >
>>
>> So, you will be able to use --enable-frame-pointer configure option.
>>
>> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02034.html
>
> ... or use backtrace()
What kind of black magic would you expect backtrace(
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:08, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 09:56, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, we have to bite the bullet from time to time in order to improve
>>> the generated code.
>>
>> What's your performance functio
> > I like backtraces.
> >
>
> So, you will be able to use --enable-frame-pointer configure option.
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02034.html
... or use backtrace()
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
On 08/08/2010 05:08 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> So, you will be able to use --enable-frame-pointer configure option.
Or, presumably the -fno-omit-frame-pointer command line option?
Bernd
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 09:56, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> IMO, we have to bite the bullet from time to time in order to improve
>> the generated code.
>
> What's your performance function?
See measurements at [1].
>
> I like backtraces.
>
So
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 09:56, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> IMO, we have to bite the bullet from time to time in order to improve
> the generated code.
What's your performance function?
I like backtraces.
Hello!
After recent discussions, I would like to propose a transition to
-fomit-frame-pointer for x86_32.
The transition should be smooth as much as possible, should have
option to revert to old behaviour and still providing path for the
improvement. And we have learned something from cld issues,
>
> The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.5.1 has been released.
>
> GCC 4.5.1 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and
> serious bugs in GCC 4.5.0. This release is available from the
> FTP servers listed at:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
>
> Please do not contact me di
* Paolo Bonzini:
>> There quite a few instances of the x & -x pattern, which would be fine
>> with -fwrapv.
>
> It's always valid if you know that x is not INT_MIN, which you do in
> many cases (for example if x is an offset).
The reported cases cover the INT_MIN case (these are execution logs,
n
On 08/08/2010 07:13 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Vincent Lefevre:
On 2010-08-07 13:38:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* John Regehr:
[...]
Let me know if more detail is needed or if it would be better for me to
file all 71 bug reports.
I wonder if we should give up and make -fwrapv the defa
* Vincent Lefevre:
> On 2010-08-07 13:38:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * John Regehr:
> [...]
>> > Let me know if more detail is needed or if it would be better for me to
>> > file all 71 bug reports.
>>
>> I wonder if we should give up and make -fwrapv the default.
>
> Do you really mean th
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Mark Hahn wrote:
> this mirror seems to be stuck at versions around late 2009.
Thanks for letting us know, Mark.
Let me include i...@internet.bs -- can you fix this or should I remove
your mirror?
Gerald
Возмущает спам почтовый!!! А на телевидение нет спама, с которым мы
смирились???
Почему спамом называют письма приходящие от массовых рассылок. Почему бы не
назвать спамом различную рекламу,
которая входит в нашу жизнь без нашего разрешения, фактически нервируя нас хуже
в сто раз, чем почтов
Richard Guenther wrote:
But no, the frontend cannot currently communicate such things.
This would, btw, also disable array-bounds warnings - as that
does rely on "true" value ranges being used, like for
Yep - I later realized that one should either:
1. Emit code for array bound checking, or
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Recently, Thomas Koenig introduced an optimization in the Fortran Front End
> that enables it do determine that in:
>
> subroutine foo(a,n,i,j)
> implicit none
> integer, intent(in) :: i,j,n
> real, dimension(20) :: a
> a(1:10) = a(i:j)
> ..
On 2010-08-07 13:38:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * John Regehr:
[...]
> > Let me know if more detail is needed or if it would be better for me to
> > file all 71 bug reports.
>
> I wonder if we should give up and make -fwrapv the default.
Do you really mean that all these integer overflows s
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.5.1 has been released.
GCC 4.5.1 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and
serious bugs in GCC 4.5.0. This release is available from the
FTP servers listed at:
http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
Please do not contact me directly regarding
22 matches
Mail list logo
