> -Original Message-
> From: Georg-Johann Lay
> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 3:06 PM
> To: GCC Development ; Tamar Christina
>
> Subject: Re: Understanding bogus? gcc.dg/signbit-6.c
>
> Am 02.10.24 um 15:55 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay:
> > I am having pr
> -Original Message-
> From: Georg-Johann Lay
> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 2:55 PM
> To: GCC Development ; Tamar Christina
>
> Subject: Understanding bogus? gcc.dg/signbit-6.c
>
> I am having problems understanding test case gcc.dg/signbit-6.c
> which
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 1:54 PM
> To: Richard Sandiford
> Cc: Richard Biener via Gcc ; Tamar Christina
>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Merge strathegy for all-SLP vectorizer
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2024, Richard Sand
think the codegen part can mostly be used as is, though we might be able to
do better for VLA.
So it should be fairly straight forward to go from that final patch to what
Richi wants, but.. I just lack time.
If you want to tackle it that would be great :)
Thanks,
Tamar
> Thanks.
>
>
> Also, another question is that I am working on min/max reduction with index, I
> believe it should be in GCC-15, but I wonder
> whether I can pre-post for review in stage 4, or I should post patch (min/max
> reduction with index) when GCC-15 is open.
>
FWIW, We tried to implement this 5 year
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc On Behalf
> Of Paul Iannetta via Gcc
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:54 AM
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: Sylvain Noiry ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org;
> sylvain.no...@hotmail.fr
> Subject: Re: Complex numbers support: discussions summary
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at
Hi,
I tried to find you two on Sunday but couldn't locate you. Thanks for the
presentation!
> >
> > We had very interesting discussions during our presentation with Paul
> > on the support of complex numbers in gcc at the Cauldron.
> >
> > Thank you all for your participation !
> >
> > Here is a
Hi Coudert,
Sorry, missed that one.
I'll fix that.
Tamar.
> -Original Message-
> From: FX Coudert
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2023 9:21 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jeff Law ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: gcc/config.in w
HI,
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Stubbs
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 12:19 PM
> To: GCC Development
> Cc: Tamar Christina
> Subject: Complex multiply optimization working?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at implementing the complex mult
-- edit, added list back in --
Just to add some AArch64 numbers for Spec2017 we see 2.1% overall Geomean
improvements (all from x264 as expected) with no real regressions (everything
within variance) and only a 0.06% binary size increase overall (of which x264
grew 0.15%) using the very cheap c
Hi Martin,
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches bounces+tamar.christina=arm@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Martin Liška
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:09 AM
> To: Joseph Myers
> Cc: GCC Development ; gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Port GCC documentation to Sphinx
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 9:48 AM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Biener
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Implementing detection of saturation and rounding
> arithmetic
>
> Tamar Christina wri
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 6:01 PM
> To: David Brown
> Cc: Tamar Christina ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard
> Sandiford ; Richard Biener
>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Implementing detection of saturation and rounding
> ari
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:43 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Sandiford ;
> Richard Biener
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Implementing detection of saturation and rounding
> arithmetic
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 12:45 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Sandiford ;
> Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Implementing detection of saturation and rounding
> arithmetic
>
&
Hi David,
> -Original Message-
> From: David Brown
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:04 AM
> To: Tamar Christina ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Sandiford ; Richard Biener
>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Implementing detection of saturation and rounding
> arithmetic
Hi All,
We are looking to implement saturation support in the compiler. The aim is to
recognize both Scalar and Vector variant of typical saturating expressions.
As an example:
1. Saturating addition:
char sat (char a, char b)
{
int tmp = a + b;
return tmp > 127 ? 127 : ((tmp
we can do to make this easier for you to review do let us
know.
Thanks,
Tamar
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Ochoa
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:53 PM
> To: GCC Development
> Cc: Christoph Müllner ;
> philipp.toms...@theobroma-systems.com; Tamar Christina
> ; Kev
Thanks both!
Cheers,
Tamar
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Liška
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:41 PM
> To: Tamar Christina ; Jonathan Wakely
>
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT] ChangeLog
Hi All,
We've been wondering since we no longer list authors in the changelog (at least
mklog doesn't generate it),
How do we handle multi author patches nowadays?
Tried searching for it on the website but couldn’t find anything.
Thanks,
Tamar
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches
> -Original Message-
> From: Florian Weimer
>
> * Tamar Christina:
>
> > A bit late to the party, but this really doesn't work that well
> > because until recent version of gitlab there was no fairness
> > guarantee. another patch could be approved
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc On Behalf Of Florian Weimer
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:59 PM
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: overse...@gcc.gnu.org; Jonathan Wakely via Gcc ;
> Overseers mailing list ; Segher Boessenkool
> ; Alexander Monakov ;
> Frank Ch. Eigler ; Frank Ch. Eigler ;
Thanks Richard!
This is very helpful to see where you’re going with the changes!
Cheers,
Tamar
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 11:57 AM
To: Tamar Christina
Cc: Kewen.Lin ; GCC Development ; Segher
Boessenkool
Subject: Re: How to extend SLP to support this case
On Tue, Mar
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc On Behalf Of Richard Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:12 AM
> To: Kewen.Lin
> Cc: GCC Development ; Segher Boessenkool
>
> Subject: Re: How to extend SLP to support this case
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 7:52 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
s Koenig
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2019 10:53 AM
To: Tamar Christina ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: GCC Spec2017 optimization Wiki
Am 06.10.19 um 16:25 schrieb Tamar Christina:
> As discussed during the Cauldron I have created a wiki page
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCCSpec2017
&g
Hi All,
As discussed during the Cauldron I have created a wiki page
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCCSpec2017
For us to discuss and exchange ideas to improve GCC's spec score.
I have created pages for all the benchmarks and have filled in an analysis for
MCF https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCCSpec2017/mcf
Hi Eric,
So looking at it again, this seems to be happening during stage3.
And there aren't any special flags being set.
Regards,
Tamar
From: Eric Botcazou
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:23 PM
To: Tamar Christina
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Óscar Fu
>
> Then, if both the base compiler and the compiler to be built are configured
> that way, there is no reason why this cannot work.
>
> What's a little strange is that there is a .cold part in the backtrace:
>
> #14 0x015fd511 in uw_init_context_1.cold () at ../../../gcc-8-
> 20181214/libgcc/
> > Ah, that makes sense since the 32-bit SEH is different from the 64-bit
> > one, explains why the 64-bit builds work.
>
> Which EH mechanism does the base compiler use? The default one? We
> know that this works with the DWARF-2 mechanism (--disable-sjlj-
> exceptions).
It's built with --dis
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Botcazou
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:19
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: Óscar Fuentes ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: testsuite result updates for x86_64-w64-mingw32
>
> > The gnat1 command that fails is
> >
>
Forwarding to list as well.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tamar Christina
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:02
> To: 'Óscar Fuentes' ; Eric Botcazou
>
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: testsuite result updates for x86_64-w64-mingw32
>
> Hi Eric,
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org On Behalf Of Eric
> Botcazou
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 16:40
> To: Óscar Fuentes
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: testsuite result updates for x86_64-w64-mingw32
>
> > About the Ada compiler: it doesn't build on i686-w64-
Hi Richard,
Thanks for all the help so far,
> > so I'd need 5 parameters and then I'm guessing the other expressions
> would be removed by DCE at some point?
>
> Are you planning to make the FCMLA behaviour directly available as an
> internal function or provide a higher-level one that does a fu
Hi Richard,
> > [...]
> > 3) So I abandoned vec-patterns and instead tried to do it in
> > tree-vect-slp.c in vect_analyze_slp_instance just after the SLP tree
> > is created. Matching the SLP tree is quite simple and getting it to
> > emit the right SLP tree was simple enough,except that at this
Hi All,
I am trying to add support to the auto-vectorizer for complex operations where
a target has instructions for.
The instructions I have are only available as vector instructions. The
operations
are complex addition with a rotation or complex fmla with a rotation for
half floats, floats an
> >
> >It then later decides to undo this and so generates a different order.
> >Question is, is this unexpected or should optimizations in expand be
> >checking for associativity?
>
> It's expected. Once fully in SSA the canonical operand order is lower SSA
> name versions first.
Ah, fair enoug
Hi All,
I noticed something weird with IPA and I'm wondering if it's a bug or not.
Given these two functions
double
check_d_pos (double x, double y)
{
return x * __builtin_copysign (1.0, y);
}
double
check_d_neg (double x, double y)
{
return __builtin_copysign (-1.0, y) * x;
}
and current
> > 2) Why doesn't the GIMPLE pass match on the GIMPLE code produced by
> the Fortran version?
> >I have created an example where the GIMPLE trees of the two match
> exactly % some attributes
> >on the expressions.
>
> Fortran (and other frontends besides C-family) do not get their builtin
Hi All,
I am trying to understand how match.pd works as I'm writing a simple matching
rule but have run into some issues
and there's very little documented on match.pd.
short version:
1) Why is there a difference in expressiveness between the GIMPLE and the
GENERIC
versions of match.pd. Par
39 matches
Mail list logo
