to be a manifestation of PR32335, where the extra assignment to the
same register (in this case r57) is added by auto_inc_dec analysis and not
explicit in the parallel.
Has anyone come across this before?
Paulo Matos
2012-10-19 Paulo Matospma...@broadcom.com
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-3.c: Ensure we are looking
for 0.0 and not for something like 3000, which matches current 0.0
pattern.
0001-Improve-regexp-to-ensure-that-numbers-like-3000-do-n.patch
Description
Is the lack of replies a sign that I missed to explain something in my email?
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
Matos
Sent: 29 November 2012 17:04
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Failure to vectorize
TARGET_VECTORIZE_BUILTIN_CONVERSION sounds like it could be what I
want but I added some test code and in my simple example this function is never
called.
Any suggestions on how to work this out in the backend?
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
to this function and GET_CODE (pat) == COND_EXEC
generates the seg fault.
My question is, given it is a forced label, it seems to me that we really
shouldn't delete the label. Is there a missed constraint in the condition above
and therefore some further checks in scheduling?
Paulo Matos
is, why do we need to exclude
is_lang_specific(expr) from streamable trees and is there a workaround to allow
this without changing the core?
Paulo Matos
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 06 November 2012 17:12
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
On 11/06/2012 05:50 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
I am following your advice and using
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 07 November 2012 10:48
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
Yes... I seem to remember the documentation is just wrong for that hook
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 07 November 2012 11:24
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
You can effectively remove it by returning zero if all the insns on the
ready list would
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an
output dependency
which hook can be used to tell the
scheduler about this.
--
Paulo Matos
-Original Message-
From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.renne...@embecosm.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:32
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
This cannot happen, but I am unsure about which hook can be used to
tell
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an
output dependency
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph S. Myers
Sent: 23 October 2012 15:28
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
So far only TRAMPOLINE_SIZE is handled like
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph S. Myers
Sent: 23 October 2012 15:28
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
conversions of other macros are welcome
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 24 October 2012 13:32
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
I don't like this #else. Presumably the libgcc code already works
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 24 October 2012 13:32
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
I don't like this #else. Presumably the libgcc code already works
, how can I achieve something
like this and have only a string literal as value or TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP?
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
line
arguments are read or at gcc's compile time?
Paulo Matos
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Paulo Matos
Sent: 23 October 2012 12:08
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
Hi
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Paulo Matos
Sent: 23 October 2012 14:47
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
This sentence is quite confusing. 'their values must be run-time
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph S. Myers
Sent: 23 October 2012 15:28
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
At http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Top
I think the bug is in the documentation, and that
TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION should accept an IDENTIFIER_NODE.
Ian
I will be reporting this with bugzilla then.
Thanks for the clarification,
Paulo Matos
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 October 2012 09:29
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Inconsistency between code and docs
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Paulo Matos pma...@broadcom.com
wrote
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 October 2012 09:29
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Inconsistency between code and docs
Can you instead produce a patch?
Patch sent to gcc-patches.
Cheers
As a followup to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00276.html
2012-10-19 Paulo Matospma...@broadcom.com
* tm.texi, tm.texi.in: Add IDENTIFIER_NODE as an alternative possibility
to possible values of decl.
Paulo Matos
doc.patch
Description: doc.patch
. Is this the case?
Paulo Matos
Hi,
Is there any good way to define TARGET_CANNOT_MODIFY_JUMPS_P such that jumps
are not modified after sched2?
Or in other words, is there a way to recognize if sched2 has already been ran
(sched2_completed, maybe)?
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
On 02/23/10 19:12, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com:
I have a situation in writing a specific condition on an md file.
I have an insn with 2 alternatives and then I use which_alternative to
generate the assembler code but if which_alternative == 1 I am
201 - 228 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
