[Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to this list]
Hi there,
I'm currently working on adding a switch to check whether public
function involve float parameters or return values. Such a check would
be useful for people trying to write code that is compatible with both
base standard (softfloat)
Hi,
in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
/* Optimization barrier */
/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
The comment of Linux says this is a gcc bug.But will any sane compiler
disable optimization without "volatile" key word?
--
Reg
> > Sorry, forgot about that. In that case maybe program headers would be
> > best, like you say. I.e. we could use a combination of GNU attributes
> > and a new program header, with the program header hopefully being more
> > general than for just this case. I suppose this comes back to the
> >
On 03/03/14 21:30, Eric Weddington wrote:
I just replied to Denis personally.
Agreed. I haven't done anything with the AVR port in a while, and I
probably won't be doing so for a while. Maybe some time in the future.
So it makes sense to remove me from maintainership.
Eric Weddington
On behal
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
> >
> > On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenn
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:53:12PM -080
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:02 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
>
> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +o Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "|
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +oDo not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when
> + dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable)
> + code is buggy:
> +
> + int a[2];
> + int index;
> + int fo
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Your proposal looks quite promising at first glance. But rather than
> try and comment on it immediately, I am going to take a number of uses of
> RCU from the Linux kernel and apply your proposal to them, then respond
> with the results
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:47 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > 3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
> > where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
> > of the RCU primitives. H
2014-03-03 21:01 GMT+04:00 David Edelsohn :
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Denis Chertykov wrote:
>> 2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown :
>>> On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
1. Anatoly Sokolov
2. Eric Weddington
>>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Denis Chertykov wrote:
> 2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown :
>> On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
>>> I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
>>> 1. Anatoly Sokolov
>>> 2. Eric Weddington
>>>
>>> I have discussed the removal with Anatoly Sokolov
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Regarding the latter, we make a fresh start at each mo_consume load (ie,
> > we assume we know nothing -- L could have returned any possible value);
> > I believe this is easier to
On 03/03/14 14:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:53 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/03/14 11:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>> Notice that in
2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener :
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
>> Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
>> up with two years ago.
>
> You are talking about the gimple folding interface? Yes, but it's
> more similar to what I proposed before th
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:53 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/03/14 11:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to impl
On 03/03/14 11:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
atomic operations, but moving costly_func acros
2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown :
> On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
>> I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
>> 1. Anatoly Sokolov
>> 2. Eric Weddington
>>
>> I have discussed the removal with Anatoly Sokolov and he is agree with it.
>> I can't discuss the removal with Eri
dw writes:
> On 2/27/2014 11:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> dw writes:
>>> On 2/27/2014 4:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
> Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
> caused by misunderstandings of GCC's inline assembler. That's
On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
> I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
> 1. Anatoly Sokolov
> 2. Eric Weddington
>
> I have discussed the removal with Anatoly Sokolov and he is agree with it.
> I can't discuss the removal with Eric Weddington because his mail
> address invalid.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
> up with two years ago.
You are talking about the gimple folding interface? Yes, but it's
more similar to what I proposed before that.
> All in all I think it might be worth to
> exp
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Comments or suggestions?
>
> On the surface it looks like a nice idea. However, I would like to
> understand the scope of this. Are you thinking of a pattern matcher
> with peephole like a
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > I've been hacking on a prototype that generates matching and
> > simplification code from a meta-description. The goal is
> > to provide a single source of transforms currently spread
> > over the compiler
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>>> Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
>>> atomic operations, but moving costly_func across func does *not*
>>> affect the interrupt resp
As I am doing some work on avr, I would be available as an additional
maintainer, if you and the steering committee agree.
On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>> Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
>> atomic operations, but moving costly_func across func does *not*
>> affect the interrupt respond times in such a disastrous way.
>>
>> Thus you must be
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:02:14AM +0800, lin zuojian wrote:
>>I wrote a test code like this:
>> void foo(int * a)
>> {
>> a[0] = 0xfafafafb;
>> a[1] = 0xfafafafc;
>> a[2] = 0xfafafafe;
>> a[3] = 0xfafafaff;
>> a[4] = 0
Am 02/27/2014 03:34 PM, schrieb Richard Biener:
I've been hacking on a prototype that generates matching and
simplification code from a meta-description. The goal is
to provide a single source of transforms currently spread
over the compiler, mostly fold-const.c, gimple-fold.c and
tree-ssa-forw
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
> like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
I've seen the entry on our GSoC project page and edited it to discourage
people from workin
Thx,Jonathan.
--
Regards
lin zuojian
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:37:01AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 March 2014 07:00, lin zuojian wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > How do I set the format of vim,so that my code doen't look alien?
>
> Do you mean how do you set vim to match the GCC coding style
On 3 March 2014 07:00, lin zuojian wrote:
> Hi guys,
> How do I set the format of vim,so that my code doen't look alien?
Do you mean how do you set vim to match the GCC coding style?
It's not quite right, and it's mostly used for C++, but I use:
setl formatoptions=croql cindent cinoptions=:0
On 2/27/2014 8:12 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
dw writes:
What would you say to something like this:
"Since GCC does not parse the asm, it has no visibility of any static
variables or functions it references. This may result in those
symbols getting discarded by GCC as unused. To avoid this proble
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:02:14AM +0800, lin zuojian wrote:
>I wrote a test code like this:
> void foo(int * a)
> {
> a[0] = 0xfafafafb;
> a[1] = 0xfafafafc;
> a[2] = 0xfafafafe;
> a[3] = 0xfafafaff;
> a[4] = 0xfafafaf0;
> a[5] = 0xfafafaf1;
> a[6] = 0xfafafaf2;
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
