On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 08:29 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
Sorry, but again, this is not a good enough justification to me.
We do a lot of things different than The GNU Project.
So do plenty of parts of the official GNU project.
They use different coding standards, bug tracking systems,
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 13:07 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On 7/3/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/2/07, Uros Bizjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
I'm curious if it was the pre/fre changes. can you try -fno-tree-pre
and -fno-tree-fre and see if it
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:53 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 5/30/07, Jeffrey Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
The next step is to see if that patch is no longer needed for hppa
(well and fixing the hppa back-end).
I would expect you can
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 5/29/07, Jeffrey Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't followed PTR_PLUS development at all -- what specifically
spurred you to hack on this Andrew?
Since we lose a
lot of alignment in 4.0 after
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew --
I'm trying to firm up GCC 4.3 planning a bit. One of the things I'm
considering is whether or not the POINTER_PLUS branch should be merged
as part of 4.3. My understanding from looking at your emails is that
the branch is
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:56 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we run SPEC on every
architecture, and then make -O2 be the set of optimization options that
happens to do best there,
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 07:47 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 3/27/07, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* postreload.c (reload_cse_move2add): Don't look for strict lowparts
of coprocessor modes.
This changes is not in your patch.
* c-typeck.c
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:24 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 3/25/07, Charles J. Tabony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think that the easiest way to integrate this with the rest of the
compiler is to have a target hook that emits trees to compute SHIFT, INV1
and INV2.
I don't think
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 08:17 +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Paul Brook wrote:
The problem is that I don't think writing a detailed mission statement is
actually going to help anything. It's either going to be gcc contributors
writing down what they're doing anyway,
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 18:28 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This is the project proposal that I am planning to submit to Google
Summer of Code 2007. It is based on previous work of Jeffrey Laws,
Diego Novillo and others. I hope someone will find it interesting and
perhaps would like to act
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 18:45 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 19/03/07, Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:55PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Perhaps this ought to be looked at again with some seriousness.
I think this is an idea whose time has
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 15:06 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
I think the BIT_FIELD_REF should be properly folded to a constant or
the propagation not done.
Agreed. I'd lean towards folding the BIT_FIELD_REF to a constant, but
if that isn't easy I'd recommend avoiding the propagation.
Jeff
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 18:09 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
int x;
{
int y;
{
int z;
...
}
...
}
just happens to have three statements, all VAR_DECL,x, y, z, without
any reference to the starting and ending blocks. As a
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:14 -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
Do you realize how confrontational your emails sound? Have you
considered asking about the technical reasoning and justification instead
of making unfounded assertions? Do you want everyone to refute your
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 12:44 +0530, pranav bhandarkar wrote:
On 1/17/07, Mircea Namolaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. Another question I have is that, in this case, will the
following
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Sign_Extension_Removal
help in removal of the sign / zero extension ?
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 09:41 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
There appear to be more bit operations in RTL, so perhaps it is a
better idea to implement a known-bits propagation pass for RTL, with
the new dataflow engine.
If that's the case then most of the opportunities are appearing due to
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 09:08 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
As expected, more complications than I believed appeared. The changes
to bsi_remove and release_defs would be basically sufficient for ssa
names for real operands, however we are losing ssa names for virtual
operands everywhere, and
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 12:21 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 12/21/06, Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Kennedy wrote on 12/21/06 11:37:
The situation is that some SSA_NAMEs are disused (removed from the
code) without being released onto the free list by
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 11:55 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
Robert Kennedy wrote on 12/21/06 11:37:
The situation is that some SSA_NAMEs are disused (removed from the
code) without being released onto the free list by
release_ssa_name().
Yes, it happens if a name is put into the set of
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 10:08 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
First, let's go ahead and define an orphan. An orphan is an SSA_NAME
which has SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT pointing to a statement which does not
appear in the IL.
I may be missing something, but I don't think that is the interesting
issue
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 14:05 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
In any case, that is not important. I agree that every SSA name in the
SSA table needs to have a DEF_STMT that is either (a) an empty
statement, or, (b) a valid statement still present in the IL.
Just to be 100% clear. This is not true
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 20:18 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
I think this might be a good idea. I think that this requires
a lot of changes (basically going through all uses of bsi_remove
and remove_phi_node and checking them), but it would be cleaner
than the current situation.
Agreed. Tedious
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 10:58 -0800, Robert Kennedy wrote:
Right now we can have SSA_NAMEs in the
list which are no longer used, and we have no way to tell whether they
are used or not. Thus the only way to see all valid SSA_NAMEs is to
walk the code.
To wit: are there iteration macros
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 10:54 -0800, Robert Kennedy wrote:
In this case this isn't true, because we have code that orphans ssa
names without releasing them.
I'm sure Robert will explain further details in a few moments :)
Actually you explained all the relevant details. The question is
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:08 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
Markus Franke wrote on 11/27/06 12:50:
Are there also some other optimisation passes working on the GIMPLE/SSA
representation which make use of any machine-dependent features?
Yes. Passes like vectorization and loop optimizations
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:01 -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
However, various optimizer needs to know about this special tree node.
not really (not any more than they know about other tree codes that are
not interesting for them).
If we take an example of Jump Threading pass then it needs to
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 00:45 +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
actually, that will be trivial once jump threading updates loop properly
(I have a patch for that).
I'd like to see that.
I recall poking at having threading update things like loop exit
points and gave up. The problem is you could
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 19:26 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Toon Moene:
Well, I'd like to order, but it is unclear from the online
documentation whether I'm eligible for the educational / non-profit
price.
$ 800 is a bit too much - even for my most prominent hobby.
I know someone
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:57 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Diego,
Jeff's point about our optimizers is also true. Nick, remember that
issue with MIPS optimizations you were discussing with Jeff a few days
ago? I didn't follow most of the details, but it involved
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
(In my opinion, it doesn't really matter if MODIFY_EXPR is treated as
doing an implicit conversion; the important thing is that the set of
places where implicit conversions are performed be both limited and
documented. If we save tons
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 10:49 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:00 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
In the particular case of two static functions or two static global
pointers, it is possible for the compiler to compute it. Isn't it? I
think that the linker will reorder the sections,
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:08 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it possible for me to write a backend that accepts certain
addressing modes for loads, while rejecting them for stores? I am not
sure how to do this with the GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS macro. I
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
what they used or knew about. Not much
33 matches
Mail list logo
