On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:16:14 -0500, Tom Browder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A naive thought, perhaps:
Would there be any advantage to using a key-value embedded database
program for the voluminous maps needed for gcc optimization, etc.?
If so, consider http://tokyocabinet.sourceforge.net.
I
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:25:56 +0200, Steven Bosscher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir, if you feel that Peter's code cannot be used directly in IRA,
would you please explain why not?
I think he already has explained,
On 2008/4/28 Ben Elliston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 21:45 +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Don't be stupid!
Could you be a bit more civil, please? It's fairly unusual for people
on this list to talk to each other in this way.
Thanks,
Ben
Excuse me, i'm
On 2008/4/28 Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.C. Pizarro wrote on :
On 2008/4/28 Ben Elliston wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 21:45 +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Don't be stupid!
Could you be a bit more civil, please? It's fairly unusual for people
on this list to talk
On 2008/4/27 J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri 25 Apr 2008 22:22:55 -0500, Peter Bergner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between a compressed upper triangular bit matrix from a
standard
upper triangular bit matrix like the one above, is we eliminate space from
On Fri 25 Apr 2008 22:22:55 -0500, Peter Bergner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 20:23 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Hi, Peter. The last time I looked at the conflict builder
(ra-conflict.c), I did not see the compressed matrix. Is it in the
trunk? What should I look at?
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:56:38 -0400, Alan Lehotsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin,
I did a port of GCC to the Analog Devices SHARC chip. I ended up
supporting 3 kinds of pointers for this chip (two for address
spaces and one for byte pointers - the chip itself is only word
addressable (although
On 2008/3/30, Alexey Salmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are issues of Garbage Collection from libgcc or Boehms's GC
that you possibly can't use another allocators that these defaults,
unless you have control of the manager of the whole memory,
and it's too complex due to the
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:39:13 +0600, Alexey Salmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, here's my application. Please, leave your comments as I still
have two days to fix it if something is wrong :)
Project
I want to make some improvements in the Lexer/cpplib area:
1) Change the way of file
On 2008/3/26, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] i wrote:
On 2008/3/26, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] i wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:22:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, David Miller wrote:
There are ways to get large pages into the process address
On 2008/3/26, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] i wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:22:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, David Miller wrote:
There are ways to get large pages into the process address space for
compute bound tasks, without suffering the well
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:44:29 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
The engineers currently are not listed in the FSF copyrights
assignment file.
David
Why they've to be listed in FSF copyrights assignment file?
Intel released original x86 hardware.
AMD released original x86-64 hardware.
Intel
On 2008/3/13, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:44:29 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
The engineers currently are not listed in the FSF copyrights
assignment file.
David
Why they've to be listed in FSF copyrights assignment
On 2008/3/13, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is off-list, because you are wasting the time of the list readership.
No, it's the readership that has to waste its little time if he wants to read
the short lines mails.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:14:38PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote
On 2008/3/13, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:38 PM, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ohh, contributions aren't accepted because they had not assigned
the copyrights to FSF.
Then, are we not doing it due to GPL license instead of
GPL
Here are the results of benchmarks of 3 compressors: 7z, bzip2 and gzip, and
GCCs 3.4.6, 4.1.3-20080225, 4.2.4-20080227, 4.3.0-20080228 4.4.0-20080222.
--
# User's time is taken, machine is Ath64 3200+ 2.0 GHz x1, 64+64K
Compiling and executing the code of Nick Piggin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-02/msg00601.html
in my old Athlon64 Venice 3200+ 2.0 GHz,
3 GiB DDR400, 32-bit kernel, gcc 3.4.6, i got
$ gcc -O3 -falign-functions=64 -falign-loops=64 -falign-jumps=64
-falign-labels=64 -march=i686 foo.c -o foo
$
On 2008/2/26, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED], i wrote:
4. C cmov jmp when it's unpredictable and has not data dependencies.
I'm sorry of my error typo, the correct is (without the not)
4. C cmov jmp when it's unpredictable and has data dependencies.
and my forgotten 3rd annotation:
* cmov
It's a final summary for good performance of the tested machines:
+ unpredictable: * don't use conditional jmp (the worst).
/ * use cmov or C version.
/
\ + no deps: * use cmov or C version.
\ /
+ predictable: \
+ has deps: *
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:14, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Only cases we do so quite reliably IMO are:
1) loop branches that are not interesting for cmov conversion
2) branches leading to noreturn calls, also not interesting
3) builtin_expect mentioned.
4) when profile feedback is around
The 4.0.x branch was R.I.P.ed.
Commiting 4.1.x, 4.2.x, 4.3.x and 4.4.x means 4 times of efforts than 3 times.
They are very similar in design, they use TreeSSA, autovectoring, etc.
It's recommended to be online 4.2.x, 4.3.x and 4.4.x branches.
I want to see a comparison of performances between
Hallo,
i'm comparing minor differences between testresults of 4.4/4.3 (20080221 x64)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01486.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01487.html
and i found superfluous reporting in 4.4.0:
FAIL: foo/bar.mm (test for excess errors)
Hallo!
I've ideas when there are repetitive processes as e.g. the testing processes.
Q1. Why to lose time testing the same reiterated files that always had worked
for many months or years?
A1. To cache them the worked testsuite's files that had worked for many
months or years and put it
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Weddington, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe there could be a semi-primary or experimental
primary status;
a feature could be treated as primary, but with the understanding that
the requirement will be waived if it causes excessive delay. The
experimental label
Hallo,
When the recent GCC compiler is very slow compiling projects or packages then
many people refuse to follow recompiling updated versions of projects,
few people tend to test each time less the updated versions, there are
less beta testers and finally less detection of unknown bugs .
Where
Hallo,
Is there summarized table of ABI binary compatibility of following
compiled programs by ...?
1st. C (the core)
2nd. Fortran
3rd. C++
and 4th. GCJ's Java
between the 4.3.0, 4.2.3, 4.1.x, 4.0.x, 3.4.x and 3.3.x versions?
The comments are not for me, they are for everyones who need
At http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00360.html, Andreas Ericsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's still an issue next week, we'll have a 16 core (8 dual-core cpu's)
machine with some 32gb of ram in that'll be free for about two days.
You'll have to remind me about it though, as I've got a
On 2007/12/12, Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the last few weeks we (Google) have been discussing ideas on how to
leverage the LTO work to implement a whole program optimizer that is
both fast and scalable.
While we do not have everything thought out in detail, we think we have
On 2007/12/12, Jonathan Wakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/2007, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* The googlish user says
i'm using the massive googlecc compiler that uses a lot of tons
of libraries
distributed in all the world!
* google shutdown = googlecc
On 2007/12/7, Jakub Narebski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Jakub Narebski wrote:
Although there was some talk about whether giw should use autotools,
or perhaps CMake, or handmade ./configure script like MPlayer IIRC,
instead of its own handmade Makefile...
2007/12/7, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 05:41:50PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
On 07 December 2007 17:24, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
You can do a critical section mainly between processes
Thanks for your well-meaning attempt to help, but you don't understand
what
On 2007/12/7, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07 December 2007 18:09, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
You're wrong. My suggestions are not based from school and are not useless.
Now /you're/ wrong: your suggestions *are* useless. You suggested using
inter-process communications to try
On 2007/12/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
Also I could end up being performance limited by SHA, it's not very
well tuned on Sparc. It's been on my TODO list to code up the crypto
unit support for Niagara-2 in the kernel, then work with
On 2007/12/06, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I think that --aggressive should be aggressive, and if you
decide to run it on a machine which lacks the muscle to be aggressive,
well, you should have known better.
That's a
On 2007/12/06, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote:
What is really disappointing is that we saved only about 20% of the
time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but my guess is that we
spent
On 2007/12/6, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED], i wrote:
For multicores CPUs, don't divide the work in threads.
To divide the work in processes!
Tips, tricks and hacks: to use fork, exec, pipes and another IPC mechanisms
like
mutexes, shared memory's IPC, file locks, pipes, semaphores, RPCs
The autotools ( automake + libtool + autoconf + ... ) generate many big
files that they have been slowing the building's computation and growing
enormously their cvs/svn/git/hg repositories because of generated files.
To see below interesting links:
1. http://dot.kde.org/1172083974/
2.
On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive
On 2007/11/29, Sylvain Pion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Meissner a écrit :
One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
compile individual functions with specific target options. I first
presented a
draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at
On 2007/11/29, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED], i wrote:
Autovectorization is still a researching issue.
+--++--+ /---\ ++
| unroll-loops | - | inline-functions | - big BBs - | autovectorize
On 2007/11/29, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29 November 2007 00:12, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
The more weird thing was ... in middle of the C's stack from
int execle(const char *path, const char *arg, ..., char * const envp[]);
extracted from man execle.
http://www.opengroup.org
builtins.def:635: DEF_EXT_LIB_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_EXECVE,
execve, BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING,
ATTR_NOTHROW_LIST)
Is it BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING
a weird bug?
The correct const symbol is BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING
On 2007/11/29, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED], i wrote:
builtins.def:635: DEF_EXT_LIB_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_EXECVE,
execve, BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING,
ATTR_NOTHROW_LIST)
Is it BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING
a weird bug
For your Opteron, try with this option
-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=k8 -funroll-loops -finline-functions
-fpeel-loops \
-mno-sse3 -msse2 -msse -mno-mmx -mno-3dnow
The Opteron hardware said that it's better to use SSE2 than SSE3.
The MMX and 3DNow!+ instructions are shorter and older than
Hello.
I'd read GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-11-27) from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00753.html
I suppose that there is not time to eliminate many bugs from
open regressions others.
Could not we to use Code coverage of the GCC snapshot
during its bootstrapping or testsuite time?
See
2007/11/28, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:43:48AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
I'd read GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-11-27) from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00753.html
I suppose that there is not time to eliminate many bugs from
open regressions
$ svn -q co svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc
$ du -s .
1044451 .
$
It's 1'069'517'824 characters made from keyboards and generators!!!
That massive!!! And slower checkout after several minutes!!!
Is not there any another solution to reduce this massive quantity
for the most recent part of
On 2007/11/28, Ismail DAnmez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ svn -q co svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc
$ du -s .
1044451 .
$
It's 1'069'517'824 characters made from keyboards and generators!!!
That massive!!! And slower checkout after several minutes!!!
Is not there any another
2007/11/26, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The word full worries me a bit, I am afraid of it being interpreted as
a requirement to be 100% correct in all cases, and this may be too
severe. What we are looking for is good enough in practice, which is a
vaguer criterion, but a more useful
2007/11/26, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
You've reason, the world full can mean one of many scenarios depending
in how wants it to be filled!
So, it's afraid unknownly in what scenario has to be filled.
But, the most important thing is the idea
On Nov 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 7:57 AM, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2007, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, hashing is fine, but doing walks over a
On Nov 26, 2007, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] that i wrote:
..., last access data for elimination from bigger cache, etc. }
I'm sorry, it's date, not data:
..., last access date for elimination from bigger cache, etc. }
Sincerely, J.C.Pizarro
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007, Karthik Kumar wrote:
I would like to propose a set of diffs to enable compilation of gcc
without requiring flex/bison. I feel that this would greatly benefit
the variety of users building gcc.
Dear Karthik Kumar, why not flex/bison? It's bad idea not using them.
The
On 2007/11/26, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Nov 27, 2007 12:13 AM, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007, Karthik Kumar wrote:
I would like to propose a set of diffs to enable compilation of gcc
without requiring flex/bison. I feel that this would
To imagine that i'm using -g -Os -finline-functions -funroll-loops.
There are differences in how to generate optimized AND debugged code.
A) Whole-optimized but with dirty debugged information if possible.
When
To imagine that i'm using -g -Os -finline-functions -funroll-loops.
There are differences in how to generate optimized AND debugged code.
A) Whole-optimized but with dirty debugged information if possible.
When
On Nov 24, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hat is indeed the problem, but I'm not sure your requirement is
feasible. If we permit DECL_UID divergence, it means we can't use
DECL_UID for hashing any more. Since they already stand for hashable
proxies for the decl pointers, I
The incomplete information (with losses) from A) doesn't mean BAD design.
This is as a paradox of compression,
A) for lossy compressors like JPEG, MP3, Ogg/Vorbis, MPEG, ...
and B) for lossless data compressors like PNG, GIF, zip, gzip, bzip2,
rar, 7z, ...
You will understand quickly the meaning
2007/11/19, Manuel López-Ibáñez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DevelopmentSchedule
On 19/11/2007, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline , it's not a future roadmap,
it's a past roadmap.
Why doesn't it publish a future
Hello people, i've a question.
Is it safe the code generation when GCC is using the options
-lpthread and -mmmx -msse -msse2 -msse3 -msse4?
The GNU Portable Threads (of -lpthread) uses longjmp/setjmp that
saves general purpose registers but not SIMD registers.
GCC should to print warning or
operations used in parallelism, etc.
I've not more questions now, thanks.
Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro
Here http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline , it's not a future roadmap,
it's a past roadmap.
Why doesn't it publish a future roadmap, ToDo, plans,
or ideas to be improved ... in the GCC's development?
Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro
is sufficient.
J.C. Pizarro
2007/11/3, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They need to add an algorithm post-SSA that the code reuse the variables
converting a_j - phi(a_i,...) to a_k - phi(a_k,...).
I'm sorry, a_k - phi(a_k,...) is invalid due to SSA form definition,
but this algorithm need some form to represent
2007/11/3, Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
They need to add an algorithm post-SSA that the code reuse the variables
converting a_j - phi(a_i,...) to a_k - phi(a_k,...).
The algorithms of POST_INC and POST_DEC are very specific, so an above
general algorithm
2007/11/2, NightStrike [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/1/07, Ted Byers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I agree with you 100%. It has always been my view that if you can't
compile fast enough, then get another machine and use distcc, or get a
quad core and
MBs of disk space. Why?
What is there inside of fat .gch file? What means the .gch file?
J.C. Pizarro
family is little bit slower than the older gcc3's family.
The gcc-4.3 snapshot is worse than gcc-4.2/gcc-4.1 in the code generation,
due to its bad code size (~2.3MB) and sometimes long run time (52s).
--
J.C. Pizarro
possible.
J.C. Pizarro
http://mhonarc.axis.se/dev-etrax/msg05341.html
http://www.srcdoc.com/linux_2.2.26/floatlib_8c.html
http://forums.ni.com/attachments/ni/beta2/100/1/Linker%20error%20stream.txt
J.C. Pizarro
where 'b' will be hidden used through
the pointer p_2. It's too weird for me.
J.C. Pizarro
?
Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro
prematurely dead-code and to
optimize partially the register allocation then
why is hard to optimize unrolling loop, inlining code, instructions
scheduling, etc because of the SSA's presence?
Don't forget, Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
J.C. Pizarro
2007/10/22, Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Are they mixed into a single
variable declaration? Are they treated as separate variables and
handled later by the register allocator?
If possible, the former. If not possible, they are kept as separate
variables
optimization?
Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro
everyone else here is too polite to tell it to you, but could you please
shut up, until:
-- you learn at least basics of English grammar (so that we can actually
understand what you are saying), and
-- at least something about gcc
later).
* the C programming language that is used to develop GCC is not
following above these principles.
J.C. Pizarro
tree-ssa code.
Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro ;)
Hi people, i've my opinion about the future SPARCv9 (64 bit): awful!
IMHO,
* Before:
Development of SunCC was 10% time vs 90% time in the development of
GCC/binutils toolchain of SPARC for GNU/Linux.
* After:
Development of SunCC was 98% time vs 2% time in the development of
GCC/binutils
. ppc64: 15%
3. sparc64: 5%
4. others: 5%
Any opinion to the respect?
Sincerely yours, J.C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/lto/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gimple-tuples-branch/ChangeLog
2007-07-17 Nick Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* COPYING3: New file. Contains version 3 of the GNU General
Public License.
* COPYING3.LIB: New file.
2007/7/27, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 04:22:31PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
The users don't want to join and detach to many mailing lists to post
only a message once by week or month. He wants to post quickly,
not to post slowly more than 10 minutes.
You're
Friendly Gaurav
Build it with the -ggdb2 option, and follow those steps:
$ gdb a.out
(gdb) start
(gdb) stepi
(gdb) backtrace
(gdb) step
(gdb) bt
(gdb) stepi
(gdb) bt
(gdb) help
It's funny ;)
2007/7/25, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:32:33PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
After runned it, see quickdirty.log and post here your report's summary.
No, please do not. This is not the libelf list; use that list
Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
After runned it, see quickdirty.log and post here your report's summary.
;)
libelf-0.8.2_quickdirtyprint.patch
Description: Binary data
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:29:41 +0200 wrote:
Hello!
It is worth noticing that latest changes to gcc brought more than 75% speed-up
on Polyhedron aermod.f90 benchmark [1]. I can confirm this on 32bit nocona, and
double-checked on 64bit core2:
gcc -O3
400 and 500 meaning 4.00 .. 5.00, and then
there are valid values between 401 and 499.
Sincerely, J.C.
Please, to see
1. The LLVM Compiler System by Chris Lattner
http://llvm.org/pubs/2007-03-12-BossaLLVMIntro.html
http://llvm.org/pubs/2007-03-12-BossaLLVMIntro.pdf
2. Vector LLVA: A Virtual Vector Instruction Set for Media Processing
by Bocchino and Vikram
1. Stop developing new features to GCJ
and start to develop the more advanced IcedTea (a.k.a. OpenJDK).
http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki//Main_Page
2. Stop developing new features to GCC's backend
and start to develop the more advanced LLVM-GCC.
http://llvm.org/ (Low Level Virtual Machine)
For performance and simplicity, i show this summary
1. The LLVM Compiler System by Chris Lattner
http://llvm.org/pubs/2007-03-12-BossaLLVMIntro.html
http://llvm.org/pubs/2007-03-12-BossaLLVMIntro.pdf
2. LLVM in OpenGL and for Dynamic Languages by Chris Lattner
2007/6/1, Frank Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To obtain 200-250% in speed gain won't be possible for this GCC
optimizing compiler because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
Amdahl's Law talks about paralellism. That is not the case here.
He apply a different approach for
From Frank Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear GCC Team,
Last weekend I finished the release of my directly coded
analyzer generator engine for Quex. First, I thought, it would
be just a nice idea to step away from table driven approach
of flex/lex. Directly coding also facilitates the step
2007/5/31, J.C. Pizarro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To obtain 200-250% in speed gain won't be possible for this GCC
optimizing compiler because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
To understand the law's idea, to see first the red-A blue-B graphic.
GCC throws more time optimizing than
2007/5/21, Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
transliterates the logic
of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
functions.
Please resubmit against 4.3
2007/5/21, Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 2:04 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
I hate the '-b-r-a-i-n [ ... ]
We don't use that sort of language around here...
Don't you understand the b-r-a-i-n-f-u-c-k-e-d source code?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
I'm saying
with this patched gcc.
It's OK.
It will be more readable and comprehensible. I did patch the comprehension!
To the expert person only, please, read now the loop algorithms that
uses *_OF_LOOP_P if there is any failed logic or not.
Sincerely yours, J.C.
gcc-4.1
2007/5/19, Eric Botcazou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Please do not cross post between lists and do not send useless attachments.]
I've patched it, builded and executed, and again again with this patched
gcc. It's OK.
You apparently didn't read my previous message carefully. The patch is
exposed logical operations with not 2 values 0 and 1,
with 3 values 0, 1 and 2!
Sincerely yours, J.C.
2007/5/18, Eric Botcazou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose that there are some bugs in the snapshot gcc-4.1-20070514.
Dozens, literally, just browse the bug database. If you want to help, pick
one of them and try to fix it.
--
Eric Botcazou
How?
I can not browse
I suppose that there are some bugs in the snapshot gcc-4.1-20070514.
gcc/rtl.h
-
/* Register Transfer Language EXPRESSIONS CODE CLASSES */
enum rtx_class {
/* We check bit 0-1 of some rtx class codes in the predicates below. */
/* Bit 0 = comparison if 0, arithmetic is 1
Hi developers,
For the current trunk of GCC, thinking about
the related thing of gprof and option -pg of GCC,
it's important to output correctly the data with non-fatal accuracy,
preferably 4 digits decimal instead of 2, e.g 0. ms instead of 0.00 s.
It's important so that the Amdahl's Law
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
