Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

2010-12-04 Thread Chris Lattner
On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Joe Buck: > >> It's wasted code if the multiply instruction detects the overflow. >> It's true that the cost is small (maybe just one extra instruction >> and the same number of tests, maybe one more on architectures where you >> have to load

combine two load insns

2010-12-04 Thread roy rosen
Hi, If I have two load SI insns. Is there any way to combine them into one load DI insn? Not using peephole which can catch only this limited case of being sequential insns. I have seen something done in ARM (*arith_adjacentmem) but it is very awkward and would not be realistic if the DI is being

Re: PATCH: 2 stage BFD linker for LTO plugin

2010-12-04 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Dave Korn >>> wrote: On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > I checked in a patch to implement stag

gcc-4.6-20101204 is now available

2010-12-04 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20101204 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20101204/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: PATCH: 2 stage BFD linker for LTO plugin

2010-12-04 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >>> On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything seems to work, including "gcc -

Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

2010-12-04 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Joe Buck: > >> It's wasted code if the multiply instruction detects the overflow. >> It's true that the cost is small (maybe just one extra instruction >> and the same number of tests, maybe one more on architectures where you >> have to lo

Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

2010-12-04 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joe Buck: > It's wasted code if the multiply instruction detects the overflow. > It's true that the cost is small (maybe just one extra instruction > and the same number of tests, maybe one more on architectures where you > have to load a large constant), but it is slightly worse code than what