Libitm issues porting to POWER8 HTM

I'm currently implementing support for hardware transactional memory in the rs6000 backend for POWER8. Things seem to be mostly working, but I have run into a few issues I'm wondering whether other people are seeing. For me, all of the libitm execution test cases in libitm/testsuite/libitm.c/ com

Re: Instruction scheduling question

On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 00:06 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > The part of the scheduling change that I am interested in is the change in > > where the addiu instruction occurs and the related changes from the positive > > offsets to the negative offsets. Can anyone tell me where the code that > > de

Re: Instruction scheduling question

> The part of the scheduling change that I am interested in is the change in > where the addiu instruction occurs and the related changes from the positive > offsets to the negative offsets. Can anyone tell me where the code that > decides to do that is? Extra bonus points for any answer not incl

Instruction scheduling question

I have an instruction scheduling question I was hoping someone could help me with. Specifically, I am trying to figure out where and how GCC is deciding to move the add of a constant to a register above the use of that register and then changing the register usage by change the offsets associated

Re: Hurd port for GCC Go

On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 16:42 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:39:58 +0200, I wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:36:39 +0200, Svante Signell > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:31 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:14:31 +0200, Svante Si

GNU Tools Cauldron 2013 - Schedule

An update on this year's Cauldron. The schedule is now available at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013 We will start on Fri 12/Jul at 19:00. Presentations will run Sat all day and Sun until about 17:00. We have a very packed schedule, so it is unlikely that we will be able to add more presen

Re: Hurd port for GCC Go

Hi! On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:39:58 +0200, I wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:36:39 +0200, Svante Signell > wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:31 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:14:31 +0200, Svante Signell > > > wrote: > > > > Attached are patches to enable gccgo to bui

Re: [GCC PR55056] Re: [RFC patch] testsuite: Workaround issues with GCC 4.8.0pre + gdb.trace new KFAIL

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:02:47 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:27:21 +0100, Jan Kratochvil > wrote: > > gdb/testsuite/ > > 2013-02-02 Jan Kratochvil > > > > Workaround GCC PR debug/55056 and GDB PR server/15081. > > * gdb.base/restore.c (caller3): Protect l1 by GCC

[GCC PR55056] Re: [RFC patch] testsuite: Workaround issues with GCC 4.8.0pre + gdb.trace new KFAIL

Hi! To highlight this issue again, , now that Debian testing has switched to GCC 4.8: On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:27:21 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > gdb/testsuite/ > 2013-02-02 Jan Kratochvil > > Workaround GCC PR debug/55056 and GDB PR server/15081. > *