On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 08:44 PM, vivek pandya wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Yury for
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01440.html this link.
>> It implements procedure reordering as linker plugin.
>> I have some questions :
>> 1 ) Can you point me
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Kenny Simpson wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning says "This support has been
> checked in to trunk and should be available when GCC 4.8 is released."
>
>
> Since 4.8 has been released, and lists multiversioning support in the release
> notes
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 12:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> On 06/13/2013 12:28 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> these FAILs are much more recent but frankly I'm also puzzled: is a fix
>>> actively in the making? Do we have any sort of tim
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Sri,
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> I have added a release note for Function Multiversioning which is
>> checked into trunk. Please review.
&g
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>>Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a
>> warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is
>&g
Hi,
I have added a release note for Function Multiversioning which is
checked into trunk. Please review.
Thanks,
-Sri.
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.56
diff -
Hi,
Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a
warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is
discussed in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-11/msg00128.html
Ian's reply suggests this warning is no longer necessary and can be
removed.
Hi Jakub,
My function multiversioning patch is being reviewed and I hope to
get this in by Nov. 5.
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have st
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Joern Rennecke
>> wrote:
>>> I'll have to prepare a few more patches to (supposedly) generic
>>> code to support the ARCompact port, which we (
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> To do this, I would like to reserve a bit in the segment flags to
>> indicate that this segment is to be mapped to huge pages if possible.
>> Can I reserve something like a PF_LARGE_PAGE bit?
>
> HP-UX has a PF_HP_PAGE_SIZE (0x0010) bit
Hi,
I am working on a patch to allow subsets of text sections to be
mapped to different ELF segments :
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-07/msg00153.html using linker
plugins.
This will allow splitting hot and cold functions into separate
segments so that only the hot segment can be
Hi,
User directed Function Multiversioning (MV) via Function Overloading
===
I have created a set of patches to add support for user directed
function MV via function overloading. This was discussed in this
thread previously:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
Hi,
I am working on supporting function multi-versioning in GCC and here
is a write-up on its usability.
Multiversioning Usability
For a simple motivating example,
int
find_popcount(unsigned int i)
{
return __builtin_popcount(i);
}
Currently, compiling this with -mpopc
:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I moved implicit-zee.c to config/i386. Can you please take another
>> look ?
>
> I think this patch is best reviewed by an x86 backend maintainer now.
>
> Thanks for doing the adjustments, BTW.
>
> Paolo
>
Hi Richard,
I was wondering if you got a chance to see if this new patch is alright ?.
Thanks,
-Sriraman.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I moved implicit-zee.c to config/i386. Can you please take another look ?
>
>
=======
--- config/i386/implicit-zee.c (revision 0)
+++ config/i386/implicit-zee.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,1029 @@
+/* Redundant Zero-extension elimination for targets that implicitly
+ zero-extend writes to the lower 32-bit portion of 64-bit r
Hi,
I have a zero-extension elimination patch that has been reviewed and needs
one minor fix before it is ready for submission. I can get this in by Thursday,
October 1st. Would it be alright to submit this patch then ?
Thanks,
-Sriraman.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Richard Guenther
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 09/24/2009 08:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> We already have the hooks, they have just been stuck in plugin.c when
>>> they should really be in the generic backend. See
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is a patch to eliminate redundant zero-extension instructions
>> on x86_64.
>>
>> Tested: Ran the gcc regresssion testsuite o
ons after the patch be less than the
> number of zero-extension instructions before or is this a regression
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> Ramana
>
>>
>>
>> I have attached the latest patch :
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrot
Hi Richard,
I finally got around to getting the data you wanted. Thanks for
the response. Please
find my comments below.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>Here is a patch t
ndant Zero-extension elimination for targets that implicitly
+ zero-extend writes to the lower 32-bit portion of 64-bit registers.
+ Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ Contributed by Sriraman Tallam (tmsri...@google.com) and
+ Silvius Rus (r...@google.com
22 matches
Mail list logo
