On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On 04/07/2015 09:00 AM, Stefan Ehrlich wrote:
>> compiler and linker options are:
>> avr-g++.exe -c -Os -Wall -fdata-sections -ffunction-sections
>> -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fno-rtti -flto
>> -fuse-linker-plugin -mmcu=atm
Dear Richard, Zan,
There are no target specifics present. The program will be flashed to the µC
via a programmer and that's it.
Therefore I want to have the output hex file as small as possible.
When I play around with my demo program and the keyword virtual, I can clearly
see that the keywork
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Yinsong Xue wrote:
> On 15/4/7 下午4:33, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>
>>I still like the idea of using C + extensions most. As well as making the
>>-fdump-tree-XXX dumps (more) valid C (+ extensions). Cut & pasting
>>from dump files to generate testcases is currently
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Ehrlich
wrote:
> Dear Richard, Zan,
>
> There are no target specifics present. The program will be flashed to the µC
> via a programmer and that's it.
> Therefore I want to have the output hex file as small as possible.
>
> When I play around with my demo p
> which shows how the global objects initialization keeps things live.
> Early optimization turns it into
>
> (static initializers for t.C) ()
> {
> :
> NotUsedObject._vptr.CObject = &MEM[(void *)&_ZTV7CObject + 16B];
> return;
>
> }
>
> but we don't have any pass removing stores to global
> > which shows how the global objects initialization keeps things live.
> > Early optimization turns it into
> >
> > (static initializers for t.C) ()
> > {
> > :
> > NotUsedObject._vptr.CObject = &MEM[(void *)&_ZTV7CObject + 16B];
> > return;
> >
> > }
> >
> > but we don't have any pass r
On 15/4/8 下午4:15, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>No. Currently we dump
>
> :
> # i_57 = PHI
> # ivtmp_60 = PHI
> _65 = (int) ratio_mult_vf.8_45;
> tmp.9_64 = i_30 + _65;
> tmp.10_66 = ivtmp_33 - ratio_mult_vf.8_45;
> if (niters.6_41 == ratio_mult_vf.8_45)
>goto ;
> else
>goto ;
>
>
But without the virtual keyword the global object never read is completely
removed, so the statement "[...]but we don't have any pass removing stores to
globals never read[...]" is only true with virtual functions.
When I create the object on the stack, the optimization removes the object even
w
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Stefan Ehrlich
wrote:
> But without the virtual keyword the global object never read is completely
> removed, so the statement "[...]but we don't have any pass removing stores to
> globals never read[...]" is only true with virtual functions.
> When I create the
Dear Richard,
The optimization step for doing it does already exist --> it is used for stack
variables/objects, but unfortunately not for the global ones.
The same optimization should work for the global variables/objects, too. Or am
I wrong?
Stefan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Rich
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Stefan Ehrlich
wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> The optimization step for doing it does already exist --> it is used for
> stack variables/objects, but unfortunately not for the global ones.
> The same optimization should work for the global variables/objects, too. Or
>
That means, that there is no chance to find this in the next future GCC
releases :-(
But anyway... Thanks so far
Stefan
PS: Hope dies last
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. April 2015 13:27
An: Stefan Ehrlich
Cc:
Hi James,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, James Cloos wrote:
> The What's New in 4.8 document links to the X86 Built-in Functions
> section of the online manual, but its link is dead.
>
> The working link is:
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built_002din-Functions.html#X86-Built_002din-Functi
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:20:06AM +0100, Ekanathan, Saravanan wrote:
> (I had sent this mail to gcc-help a week ago. Not sure, all GCC developers
> are subscribed to gcc-help, so re-sending to GCC development mailing list)
>
> Hi,
>
> This looks like a missed vectorization opportunity for one of t
Hi Roman,
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Роман Саженков wrote:
> It seems like I've found an inaccuracy in GCC 4.7.0 documentation. It is
> about -fdefer-pop optimization option. The point is that this option is
> mentioned in the list of optimization flags which -O1 turns on (Chapter
> 3: GCC Command Op
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
> I was looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html and was wondering
> if the bottom of the page could be modified from links to tests ran in
> 2003 to a link to testresults with a search for sim, like
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?wm=wr
Hello,
I work currently on the libgomp support for the RTEMS operating system. It
uses the POSIX configuration and it works all right so far. One problem is
that each GOMP_parallel() invocation calls gomp_new_team() which uses malloc()
and initializes a couple of mutex, barrier and semaphore
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
> > I was looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html and was wondering
> > if the bottom of the page could be modified from links to tests ran in
> > 2003 to a link to testresults with a search for sim, lik
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150408 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150408/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
19 matches
Mail list logo
