Re: should sync builtins be full optimization barriers?

2011-09-12 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Sep 12, 2011, at 19:19, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > lets say the order of the writes turns out to be 2,4... is it possible for > both writes to be travelling around some bus and have thread 4 actually read > the second one first, followed by the first one? It would imply a lack of > memory co

Re: Endianess attribute

2009-07-02 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Jul 2, 2009, at 16:44, Michael Meissner wrote: Anyway I had some time during the summit, and I decided to see how hard it would be to add explicit big/little endian support to the powerpc port. It only took a few hours to add the support for __little and __big qualifier keywords, and in

Re: Endianess attribute

2009-07-02 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Jul 2, 2009, at 06:02, Paul Chavent wrote: Hi. I already have posted about the endianess attribute (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/threads.html#00146 ). For some year, i really need this feature on c projects. Today i would like to go inside the internals of gcc, and i would like to

Re: Thread safety annotations and analysis in GCC

2008-07-22 Thread Ken Raeburn
This looks like interesting work, and I hope something like this gets folded into a release soon. A few things occurred to me when reading the writeup at google (sorry, I haven't started looking through the code much yet): All the examples seem to be C++ oriented; is it, in fact, a goal fo

Re: [PATCH][4.3] Deprecate -ftrapv

2008-03-05 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Feb 29, 2008, at 19:13, Richard Guenther wrote: We wrap the libcalls inside libcall notes using REG_EQUAL notes which indicate the libcalls compute non-trapping +-* (there's no RTX code for the trappingness), so we combine and simplify the operations making the libcall possibly dead and remove

Should -ftrapv check type conversion?

2007-09-16 Thread Ken Raeburn
I've been looking at -ftrapv and some simple cases it doesn't work right in. (I've got a patch coming soon to address one case where __addvsi3 libcalls and the like get optimized away in RTL.) I see a few reports in Bugzilla, many marked as duplicates of PR 19020 though they cover a few di

Re: RFC: Rename Non-Autpoiesis maintainers category

2007-07-27 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Jul 27, 2007, at 07:54, Diego Novillo wrote: +Note that individuals who maintain parts of the compiler as reviewers +need approval changes outside of the parts of the compiler they +maintain and also need approval for their own patches. s/approval changes/approval for changes/ ?

Re: machine learning for loop unrolling

2007-06-17 Thread Ken Raeburn
- compile with the loop unrolled 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x and measure the time the benchmark takes The optimal unrolling factor may not be a power of two, depending on icache size (11 times the loop body size?), iteration count (13*n for some unknown n?), and whether there are actions perf

Re: [PATCH]: Proof-of-concept for dynamic format checking

2005-08-28 Thread Ken Raeburn
Maybe I should avoid making suggestions that would make the project more complex, especially since I'm not implementing it, but... If we can describe the argument types expected for a given format string, then we can produce warnings for values used but not yet set (%s with an uninitialized

Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++

2005-04-19 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Apr 18, 2005, at 18:17, Robert Dewar wrote: Is there anything in the language specifications (mainly C++ in this context, but is this an area where C and C++ are going to diverge, or is C likely to follow suit?) that prohibits spurious writes to a location? Surely the deal is that spurious wr

Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++

2005-04-18 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Apr 16, 2005, at 15:45, Nathan Sidwell wrote: It's not clear to me which is the best approach. (b) allows threads to be supported via copious uses of volatile (but probably introduces pessimizations), whereas (a) forces the thread interactions to be compiler visible (but shows more promise for

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

2005-03-16 Thread Ken Raeburn
On Mar 16, 2005, at 11:23, Richard Stallman wrote: But what are you saying to those users who don't like it that GNU programs abort silently when they discover bugs in themselves? Aren't you saying "tough" in a somewhat more polite way? No, because nobody has complained about it. T