Hi,
I am writing now the pipeline description in order to get a parallel code.
My machine has many restrictions regarding which instruction can be
parallelized with another.
I am under the assumption that for each insn only one
define_insn_reservation is matched.
Is that correct? If so then the nu
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> I think new front ends should be reviewed for general style, coding
> conventions, use of deprecated interfaces, unportabilities etc., just as
> new back ends should be reviewed.
Would anybody care to volunteer to review the Go frontend on these
grounds? The code c
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I presume you will be posting the front end and other changes for review
> > (or, I suppose, given the size of the changes, explicitly stating that you
> > propose for review the diffs between particular revisions of trunk and a
> > branch given b
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 04:49 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I came across an issue with function "optimize" attribute. The code is like:
>> __attribute__((optimize("-fno-strict-aliasing")))
>> void foo()
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> When compiling wi
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Question on what's appropriate...
>>
>> The doc section on machine dependent constraints is missing the PDP-11 ones.
>> Is that sort of doc change ok for stage 3? Can I make that as a target
>> maintainer (it says
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> Question on what's appropriate...
>
> The doc section on machine dependent constraints is missing the PDP-11 ones.
> Is that sort of doc change ok for stage 3? Can I make that as a target
> maintainer (it says that this covers "documentation
Question on what's appropriate...
The doc section on machine dependent constraints is missing the PDP-11 ones.
Is that sort of doc change ok for stage 3? Can I make that as a target
maintainer (it says that this covers "documentation for the port" which I
assume means this kind of content, ri
On 11/03/2010 04:49 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I came across an issue with function "optimize" attribute. The code is like:
> __attribute__((optimize("-fno-strict-aliasing")))
> void foo()
> {
>...
> }
>
> When compiling with -O2, we expect this function is compiled without following
>
From: Jennings, Mike-P64648
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:50 PM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: Accessing http://www3.hmc.edu/~neldredge/yamd/
From: Jennings, Mike-P64648
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:26 PM
To: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: Accessing http://www3.hmc.edu/~ne
Andrew Pinski wrote on 2010/11/03 17:44:17:
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> >
> > Using gcc 4.4.4 -Os on
>
> You might want to try 4.5.0 which IIRC has a fix for this issue. The
> issue is IV-OPTs does not take into account load/store with update.
4.5 is not an o
Hello,
I came across an issue with function "optimize" attribute. The code is like:
__attribute__((optimize("-fno-strict-aliasing")))
void foo()
{
...
}
When compiling with -O2, we expect this function is compiled without following
strict aliasing rule, whereas other code does. However, I found
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
>
> Using gcc 4.4.4 -Os on
You might want to try 4.5.0 which IIRC has a fix for this issue. The
issue is IV-OPTs does not take into account load/store with update.
-- Pinski
Using gcc 4.4.4 -Os on
loop(long *to, long *from, long len)
{
for (; len; --len)
*++to = *++from;
}
I get
/* gcc 4.4.4 -Os
loop:
addi 5,5,1
li 9,0
mtctr 5
b .L2
.L3:
lwzx 0,4,9
stwx 0,3,9
.L2:
addi 9,9,4
bdnz .
3 lo Ao Da