On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 10:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> But yes, technically you write p[0] here but as "m" merely builds
>> an address to the memory I'd say that we have to treat any "m"
>>
I've been hacking on a prototype that generates matching and
simplification code from a meta-description. The goal is
to provide a single source of transforms currently spread
over the compiler, mostly fold-const.c, gimple-fold.c and
tree-ssa-forwprop.c. Another goal is to make these transforms
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> After some investigation, we discovered that this behavior is caused by
>> big hammer in gcc/cse.c:
>> /* A volatile ASM or an UNSPEC_VOLATILE invalidates everything. */
>> if (NONJUMP_INSN_P (insn)
>> && volatile_insn_p (PA
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> So, the main question is not about triggering condition, but about the
>> behavior itself. Is it correct to flush and reload all constants ? They are
>> constants after all, they are even not stored in .data section but inlined
>> in the co
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Of course if the GIMPLE level doesn't care about the barrier then it doesn't
>> make sense to be overly conservative at the RTL CSE level. Thus I think we
>> can just remove this barrier completely.
>
> Not clear to me, what happens e.g. f
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
> like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
I've seen the entry on our GSoC project page and edited it to discourage
people from workin
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:02:14AM +0800, lin zuojian wrote:
>>I wrote a test code like this:
>> void foo(int * a)
>> {
>> a[0] = 0xfafafafb;
>> a[1] = 0xfafafafc;
>> a[2] = 0xfafafafe;
>> a[3] = 0xfafafaff;
>> a[4] = 0
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>>> Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
>>> atomic operations, but moving costly_func across func does *not*
>>> affect the interrupt resp
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > I've been hacking on a prototype that generates matching and
> > simplification code from a meta-description. The goal is
> > to provide a single source of transforms
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Comments or suggestions?
>
> On the surface it looks like a nice idea. However, I would like to
> understand the scope of this. Are you thinking of a pattern matcher
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
> up with two years ago.
You are talking about the gimple folding interface? Yes, but it's
more similar to what I proposed before that.
> All in all I think it might be worth to
> exp
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:53 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/03/14 11:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>>>>> Notice that i
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian wrote:
> Hi,
> in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
>
> /* Optimization barrier */
> /* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
> #define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
>
> The comment of Linux says this is a gcc bug.But will any sane comp
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 09:17, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:10:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:26:31AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 09:24 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> >> > So the bug was probably fixed more than 15 years ago.
>> > Probably :)
>> >
>> > But the __volatile__ shoud do
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Yury Gribov wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>> > volatile __asm__("":::"memory")
>> >
>> > is a memory barrier and a barrier for other volatile instructions.
>>
>> AFAIK asm without output arguments is implicitly marked as vo
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener :
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
> >> up with two years ago.
> >
> > You are tal
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > How do I restrict some subexpression to have
> > > a single use?
> >
> > This kind of restrictions come via the valueize() hook - simply
> > valueize to NUL
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2014-03-04 14:14 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener :
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >
> >> 2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener :
> >> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In an attempt to test some optimization I destroyed the loop property in
> pass_tree_loop_done and reinstated it in pass_rtl_loop_init, however then I
> noticed that pass_dominator started generating wrong code.
> My guess is that
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
> I am a bit confused (or unhappy) about the current_pass variable
> (in GCC 4.9 svn rev.208447); I believe we have some incoherency about it.
>
> It is generally (as it used to be in previous versions of GCC)
> a global
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
> regarding the following points:
>
> a) Pattern matching: Currently, gimple_match_and_simplify() matches
> patterns one-by-one. Could we use a decision tre
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > How do you handle a
> > > transformation that currently tries to recursively fold something else and
> > > does the main transformation only if that simplified?
> >
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How do you handle a
> > > > >
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
>> regarding the following points:
>>
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Paulo Matos
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 11 March 2014 10:52
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: dom requires PROP_lo
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
>> Matos
>> Sent: 13 March 2014 11:21
>> To: Richard Biener
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
On March 13, 2014 5:00:53 PM CET, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 13 March 2014 13:24
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: dom requires PROP_loops
>>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In gcc/c/c-parser.c:c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads (as well as other,
> similar functions), what is the point of setting the boolean tree c's
> location, given that this tree won't be used in the following?
>
> /* Attemp
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> the strings in the ".debug_str" section are output
> in an arbitrary order. Could this be changed?
>
> The function 'output_indirect_strings' in 'gcc/dwarf2out.c'
> uses htab_traverse which then outputs the string in the
> orde
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
Indeed - I have committed the fix.
Thanks,
Richard.
> This caused segfault for patterns when "simplification" operand was
> only c_expr (p
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Hariharan Sandanagobalane
wrote:
> Hello,
> This question is similar to one raised by bingfeng here
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00241.html
>
> In our private port based on GCC 4.8.1, i want to define a builtin function
> for multiply and accumulate. Th
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Martin Uecker
wrote:
> Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:44:53 +0100
> schrieb Richard Biener :
>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi list,
>> >
>> > the strings in the ".d
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it
> gets rejected and anyone interested can simply download the document from
> the wiki..]
>
> Over the past couple of months, I've slowly been putting together an act
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello,
>I've been compiling Chromium with LTO and I noticed that WPA stream_out
> forks and do parallel:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02621.html.
>
> I am unable to fit in 16GB memory: ld uses about 8GB and lto1 about 6GB
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello,
>>I've been compiling Chromium with LTO and I noticed that WPA stream_out
>> forks and do parallel:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it
>>> gets reje
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
&g
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm thinking of the right way of adding some loop related pragmas to GCC.
> An example:
>
> #pragma loop unroll = 2
> for (i = 0; i < n; i ++)
> {
> Whatever...
> }
>
> Here I want
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Look at how we implement #pragma ivdep (see replace_loop_annotate ()
>> and fortran/trans-stmt.c where it builds ANNOTATE_EXPR).
>
> Note that the C and C++ front-ends also support it.
>
> We are planning to submit a patch to add more loop
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 03/31/2014 06:25 AM, Vladimir Kargov wrote:
>>
>> On 27 March 2014 18:39, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
>>>
>>> The domain is computed on basis of the information provided by
>>> number_of_latch_execution that returns the tree expression
>>>
>>
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/27/2014 10:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Previous patch is wrong, I did a mistake in name ;)
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 03/27/2014 09:52 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Balajiganapathi S
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are doing a project which requires us to write a new pass to recalculate
> the chain of recurrences and use them. We would like to do this as an ipa
> pass plugin. For now we have got it working as a GIMPLE pass. When we try to
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2014 11:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>&
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 10:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Firefox:
cgraph.c:869 (cgraph_create_edge_1) 0: 0.0%
0: 0.0% 130358176: 6.9% 0: 0.0%1253444
cgraph.c:510 (cgraph_allocate_node)
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> AFAIK we settled on a simpler one dropping columns at stream-out time
>> that also helped.
>>
>> As for the correct way to do the optimization we agreed(?) that streaming
>> the locations elsewhere and using references to them is more appropria
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> For a "quick" GCC implementation of the builtins you could expand
>> them to a open-coded sequence during gimplification. B
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM, wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 16, 2014, at 12:42 AM, "Joey Ye" wrote:
>>
>> Ran into a fragile test case:
>> FAIL: g+.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-union5.C -std=c+11 scan-assembler 7
>>
>> $ cat nsdmi-union5.C
>> // PR c++/58701
>> // { dg-require-effective-target c++11 }
>> // { dg-f
On April 16, 2014 7:45:55 PM CEST, Peter Schneider wrote:
>In order to see what difference a different processor makes I also
>tried
>the same code on a fairly old 32 bit "AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3000+" with the
>
>current stable gcc (4.7.2). The difference is even more striking
>(dereferencing is muc
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to support, say arch1 and arch2 in custom gcc in the way
>
> gcc -march1 test.c
>
> calls
>
> ${INSTALL}/libexec/gcc/arch1/4.8.2/cc1
>
> and
>
> gcc -march2 test.c
>
> calls
>
> ${INSTALL}/libexec/gcc/arch2/4.8.2/cc1
>
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>Richi,
>
>David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
>reviewers
>for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
>
>reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be
>useful
>to
al (for some
> definition of trivial).
Yeah. Note that it's difficult to define "reviewer for code that
uses wide-int", thus my question (that is, what do you put into
MAINTAINERS and how would you interpret the entry).
But as always we apply common sense to reviewer/maintainershi
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23 April 2014 10:33, Rainer Emrich wrote:
>>
>> The requested URL /onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.0/libstdc++-api.pdf.gz was not found on
>> this server.
>
> Yes, onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.0/libstdc++-api-gfdl.xml.gz is also missing, I
> didn't figure out
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank-you for selecting me for GSoC 2014, I am looking forward to
> working with GCC community. I am grateful to Richard Biener and Diego Novillo
> for choosing to mentor me for this project. Unfortunately, I coul
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Benedikt Huber
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I want to uninline some basic blocks to a separate function to aid slp
> vectorization.
> The new pass runs just before the slp vectorization pass.
> As a first try I create an new and empty function.
> Which in turn will be filled
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/28/14 08:21, Kai Tietz wrote:
> > Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
> > up with two years ago. All in all I think it might be worth to
> > express folding-patterns in a more abstract way. So the md-like Lisp
> > syn
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 April 2014 11:22, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
>> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
>> indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unr
On April 25, 2014 4:54:28 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>Hi,
>I have a daft question to ask. I was looking through genmatch, I
>couldn't figure out why is tree code class (TYPE) stringified in call
>to add_operator () ?
>
>#define DEFTREECODE (SYM, STRING, TYPE, NARGS) \
>add_operat
On April 25, 2014 5:54:09 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am trying to print points-to information for SSA variables as below.
>
> for (i = 1; i < num_ssa_names; i++)
> {
> tree ptr = ssa_name (i);
> struct ptr_info_def *pi;
>
> if (ptr == NULL_TREE
> ||
On April 25, 2014 6:56:00 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On April 25, 2014 4:54:28 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>I have a daft question to ask. I was looking through genmatch
On April 26, 2014 12:31:34 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
wrote:
>
>On Friday 25 April 2014 11:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On April 25, 2014 5:54:09 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am trying to print points-to information for SSA var
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On April 26, 2014 12:31:34 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
> wrote:
>>
>>On Friday 25 April 2014 11:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On April 25, 2014 5:54:09 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>> He
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> On Monday 28 April 2014 02:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On April 26, 2014 12:31:34 PM CEST, Swati Rathi
>>> wrote:
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've recently noticed that GCC generates suboptimal code for Asan on ARM
> targets. E.g. for a 4-byte memory access check
>
> (shadow_val != 0) & (last_byte >= shadow_val)
>
> we get the following sequence:
>
> movr2, r0
internally operate on that,
not on the eventually slow int64_t. But that's a separate
issue.
So - any objections?
Thanks,
Richard.
2014-04-29 Richard Biener
libcpp/
* configure.ac: Always set need_64bit_hwint to yes.
* configure: Regenerated.
* config.gcc: Alw
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> > On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> >> At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
> >> that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
> >> had each of the section
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/29/14 05:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The following patch forces the availability of a 64bit HWI
> > (without applying the cleanups that result from this). I propose
> > this exact patch for a short time to get those t
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:03 PM, BELBACHIR Selim
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I encountered a problem on test 'gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-7.c' (gcc4.7.3)
> on my private port during test case "-O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects"
>
> Here is the tested code :
>
> void foo (unsigned int n)
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Benedikt Huber
wrote:
> Thank you for the hint. I managed to extract the basic blocks to a helper
> function and put
> a call to this helper function at the place of the removed basic blocks in
> the original function.
> All this is done with help of move_sese_re
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>assuming the need to generate code in which
> almost everything is used 3x (e.g. 3x registers,
> 3 times data, etc.) for a specific purpose (*) for any
> given target,
> what would be the best way to implement it?
>
> (let's name t
Status
==
After releasing GCC 4.9.0 it is now time to think about a GCC 4.8.3
release. The branch remains in release-branch mode for now until
we do a first release candidate somewhen next week. This means you
have about a week to do backports of important regression fixes - now
that GCC 4.
ws the issue?
Richard.
>
>
> On Tuesday 29 April 2014 02:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday 28 April 2014 02:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 08:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> It really depends on how "3x" should materialize in the end.
>> How do you triplicate ops with side-effects? If you only
>> triplicate ops without side-effe
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2014 04:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In some cases, GCC's pta pass does not dump the points-to informatio
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 21:11, Roman Gareev wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tobias,
>>
>> thank you for your reply! I have questions about types. Could you
>> please answer them?
>
>
> I looked through them and most seem to be related to how we derive types in
> graph
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 10:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hi Richi,
>
> thanks for the comments.
>
>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/05/2014 21:11, Roman Gareev wro
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to resurrect -Wunreachable, using an algorithm which is roughly
> based on the Java rules for reachable statements and normal completion,
> augmented to deal with labels and gotos, no-return functions, statement
> expressions, an
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > On 04/29/14 05:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > The following patch forces the availability of a 64bit HWI
> > > (without applying the cleanups that result from t
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 04:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Like I have suggested in the past a good point to do this kind of analysis
>> on the (mostly, as you say) unoptimized IL is right after going into SSA
>> form and im
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Depends on what "trivially" unreachable is. Yes,
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>if (0)
>> foo ();
>> }
>>
>> will a
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 02:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> Precisely. But optimizing this:
>>>
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> if (0)
>>> foo ();
>>> els
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>
> a) When simplification fails, we continue pattern matching with the next
> pattern
> in the order they appear in match.pd. Is that necessary ?
> Could we not simply return false fro
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:21 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Given this in tree.h:
>
> struct int_n_trees_t {
> tree signed_type;
> tree unsigned_type;
> };
Mark with GTY(())
> extern struct int_n_trees_t int_n_trees[NUM_INT_N_ENTS];
Likewise. See how global_trees is marked for example.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 02:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> The more challenging issue with early GIMPLE is that loops have already
>>> been
>>> lowered to gotos, so adopting the syntax-based Java reachability
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>
>>> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
>>> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
>>
>> Two of the three backslas
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wro
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wro
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>> So I came along the need to add another predicate for REAL_CST
>> leafs which makes me wonder if we should support tree codes
>> as predicates. Thus instead of writing
>>
>> (match_and_simplify
>> (plus (plus @0 INTEGER_CST_P@1) INTEGER_CST_P@2)
>> (plus @0 (plus @1 @2)))
>>
>> write
>>
>>
>>> * I have written test-cases for patterns in match.pd (attached patch), which
>>> result in PASS. Could you review them for me ?
>>
>> Sure. It looks good to me, though you can look at the changed match-1.c
>> testcase on the branch where I've changed the matching to look for the
>> debug outpu
Status
==
The 4.8 branch is now frozen as I am preparing a first release
candidate for 4.8.3. All patches to the branch now require
explicit approval from release managers.
Previous Report
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00026.html
GCC 4.8.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
The first release candidate for GCC 4.8.3 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8.3-RC-20140515
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 210453.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ian Bolton wrote:
> Hi, fellow GCC developers!
>
> I was wondering if the "gcc" driver could be made to invoke
> "cc1" twice, with different flags, and then just keep the
> better of the two .s files that comes out?
I'd be interested in your .s comparison tool tha
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
>> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
>> expression tree
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
>Unfortunately I shall need to take this week off, due to university exams,
> which are up-to 27th May. I will start working from 28th on pattern
> matching with decision tree, and try to cover up for the first week. I
> am extr
101 - 200 of 1168 matches
Mail list logo
