basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

2015-11-24 Thread David Wohlferd
I have solved the problem with my previous patch. Here's the update (feedback welcome): http://www.LimeGreenSocks.com/gcc/24414g.zip Based on my understanding from the previous thread, this patch now does what it needs to do (code-wise) to resolve this "basic asm and memory clobbers" issue.

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

2015-11-24 Thread David Wohlferd
On 11/24/2015 8:58 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:39 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:44 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: ... The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all those old-style asms t

gcc-5-20151124 is now available

2015-11-24 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-5-20151124 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20151124/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

2015-11-24 Thread Paul_Koning
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:58 AM, wrote: >> >> I'm really concerned with loosening the meaning of basic asm. I >> wish I could find the documentation that says, or implies, that it >> is a memory clobber. And/or that it is implicitl

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

2015-11-24 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:58 AM, wrote: > > I'm really concerned with loosening the meaning of basic asm. I > wish I could find the documentation that says, or implies, that it > is a memory clobber. And/or that it is implicitly volatile. The volatile one is right there in the current docs. h

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

2015-11-24 Thread Paul_Koning
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:39 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: > > On 11/23/2015 1:44 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: >>> >>> ... The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all those old-style asms to change. >>> If you mean

RFC: Intel386 psABI version 1.1 draft

2015-11-24 Thread H.J. Lu
Hi, Here is the Intel386 psABI version 1.1 draft: https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/intel386-psABI-20151120.pdf Main changes are 1. Add AVX-512 support. 2. Add linker optimization to combine GOTPLT and GOT slots. 3. Add R_386_GOT32X relocation and linker optimization. 4. Add FS/GS Bas

Re: GCC 5.3 Status Report (2015-11-20)

2015-11-24 Thread David Edelsohn
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 20/11/2015 14:14, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> Status >>> == >>> >>> We plan to do a GCC 5.3 release candidate at the end of next week >>> followed by the actual release a

Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments

2015-11-24 Thread Martin Sebor
On 11/23/2015 04:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering: http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf I agree with much of this, but was

Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments

2015-11-24 Thread Eric Botcazou
> In addition, I don't see anything about C compatibility here. It > would be very confusing, to say the least, if this were to be defined > in C++ but not C. Or at least they should get some form of guarantee that future C standards will not introduce incompatible rules. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments

2015-11-24 Thread Andrew Haley
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote: > There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order > of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering: > > http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf > > I agree with much of this, bu

Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments

2015-11-24 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of > evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering: > > http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf > > I agree with muc

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

2015-11-24 Thread Andrew Haley
On 23/11/15 21:02, David Wohlferd wrote: >> On 11/23/2015 2:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> > My warning still holds: there are modes of compilation on some >> > machines where you can't clobber all registers without causing reload >> > failures. This is why Jeff didn't fix this in 1999. So, if we

October/November GNU Toolchain Update

2015-11-24 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi Guys, Sorry for the delay between these updates. My new job is keeping me very busy... Anyway here are the highlights of the changes in the GNU toolchain over the last two months: The compiler and assembler now have support for the ARC EM/HS and ARC600/700 architectures and the Po