Re: About gsoc

Hello again, Dave. Have you managed to learn how a basic language Interpreter works before commenting on the significantly-more-complex gcc's efficiency? Or were you not able to because your IQ is below the freezing point of water and you can't even understand what a basic tree walker is? Then aga

Re: About gsoc

Hi Dave, On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 08:17:31PM -0500, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 01:59, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > > > Wow, what a fucking prick this guy is. > > > > [...] > You are one of the biggest assholes I've encountered in the open > source world, and I've met some real

Re: About gsoc

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:32:26 + Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 09:31, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 01:59, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:06:34 + > > > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 06:58

Re: About gsoc

Hello, On Mon, Mar 04 2024, mokshagnareddyc--- via Gcc wrote: > Hello sir/mam > I am mokshagna reddy from Mahindra university and i am currently in my > second year of under graduation in Btech artificial intelligence i had > intrest in your organization and i know programming languages like c, >

Re: About gsoc

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 09:31, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 01:59, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:06:34 + > > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 06:58, mokshagnareddyc--- via Gcc > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello sir/mam >

Re: About gsoc

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 01:59, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:06:34 + > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 06:58, mokshagnareddyc--- via Gcc > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello sir/mam > > > I am mokshagna reddy from Mahindra university and i am currently in

Re: About gsoc

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:06:34 + Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 06:58, mokshagnareddyc--- via Gcc > wrote: > > > > Hello sir/mam > > I am mokshagna reddy from Mahindra university and i am currently in my > > second year of under graduation in Btech artificial intellige

Re: About gsoc

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 06:58, mokshagnareddyc--- via Gcc wrote: > > Hello sir/mam > I am mokshagna reddy from Mahindra university and i am currently in my second > year of under graduation in Btech artificial intelligence i had intrest in > your organization and i know programming languages like

About gsoc

Hello sir/mam I am mokshagna reddy from Mahindra university and i am currently in my second year of under graduation in Btech artificial intelligence i had intrest in your organization and i know programming languages like c, c++,python how can i contribute from now and can u send details abou

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

> Hello. > I have already sent a patch for expanding roundeven for i386 with > relevant doubts. I also was regression testing with > make -k check > after successful bootstrap build with reverting my patches. Turns out > do-check fails without any patches applied, Is it ok to do anyways for > appli

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

Hello. I have already sent a patch for expanding roundeven for i386 with relevant doubts. I also was regression testing with make -k check after successful bootstrap build with reverting my patches. Turns out do-check fails without any patches applied, Is it ok to do anyways for applied patch? Also

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

Hello. I have made following changes to inspect inlining of roundeven with the following test code: double plusone (double d) { return __builtin_roundeven (d) + 1; } Running the program using -O2 foo.c gave internal compiler error which I believe is because gcc_unreachable() at: if (TARGET_SS

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > > existing ROUND_NO_EXC definition in GCC. A new definition will need > > adding alongside ROUND_FLOOR, ROUND_CEIL and ROUND_TRUNC to correspond to > > rounding to nearest with ties to even, evaluating to 0.) > > So (ROUND_ROUNDEVEN 0x0) be declared fo

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Martin Jambor wrote: > Make sure you compile to a target that has the rounding instruction, > i.e. by using an appropriate -march or -mavx) and also specify > -ffast-math on the command line. I have not double checked, but I > assume the latter is necessary (mainly) because i

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

Hello. Looking at machine description of functions like ceil/floor and I think specifically: (define_expand "2" Roundeven should be described as define_expand (or within this alongside ceil and floor?) with expand functions to emit instructions in i386-builtins.c? Referring to , operands of these

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

Hi, On Fri, Jun 14 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: >> Of course the instruction is not present there, that is the next step in >> your project :-) > > Yes, of course, but what I meant was that instructions for existing > round/ceil functions and not roundeven. If inlining for these > functions is availab

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

> Of course the instruction is not present there, that is the next step in > your project :-) Yes, of course, but what I meant was that instructions for existing round/ceil functions and not roundeven. If inlining for these functions is available, how can I inspect such instructions getting inline

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, Martin Jambor wrote: > architecture supports it. (and if IIUC, the intent is to use the 0 mode > from table 4-8 in > https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/39/c5/325462-sdm-vol-1-2abcd-3abcd.pdf > in instructions that take a rounding a mode to implement rounde

Re: Expanding roundeven (Was: Re: About GSOC.)

Hi Tejas, On Thu, Jun 13 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > As further part of implementing roundeven is inlining, I was studying > machine descriptions and I have a few questions. > > As suggested, builtin functions provided a strong model for > implementing roundeven. Keeping that in mind, I tr

Re: Committing patches and other conventions (Was: Re: About GSOC)

Hi Tejas, On Wed, Jun 12 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > Is this the correct sequence for regression test: > 1. Revert back all the changes I made and then configure, build along with > make bootstrap > make -k check > collect the *.sum files > 2. Apply the patch and do the configuration, buil

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. As further part of implementing roundeven is inlining, I was studying machine descriptions and I have a few questions. As suggested, builtin functions provided a strong model for implementing roundeven. Keeping that in mind, I tried to inspect how similar functions (round/ceil) would get in

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. > I don't think you should have the unreachable "return false;" in is_even. > The last "else if" can just be "else". I don't think return false in is_even is unreachable. As per my understanding, when one else if is true in the else if ladder, all the subsequent "else ifs" including "else"

Re: Committing patches and other conventions (Was: Re: About GSOC)

Hello. Is this the correct sequence for regression test: 1. Revert back all the changes I made and then configure, build along with make bootstrap make -k check collect the *.sum files 2. Apply the patch and do the configuration, build as above 1 and then collect the *.sum files and compare them.

Re: About GSOC.

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I have created another patch which addresses the above points, > attached herewith. I don't think you should have the unreachable "return false;" in is_even. The last "else if" can just be "else". > > a conditional with < not <=; if REAL_EXP (r

Re: Committing patches and other conventions (Was: Re: About GSOC)

Thank you for this mail. As soon as the implementation of roundeven is approved, I will do the documentation in ChangeLogs wherever necessary and the testing part. Will also make changes where my code does not match the GCC coding conventions and will try to follow it further. Thanks. -Tejas On T

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I have created another patch which addresses the above points, attached herewith. > a conditional with < not <=; if REAL_EXP (r) == SIGNIFICAND_BITS, the > least significant bit has value 1 and the number must be an integer). The number is integer because of the whole word spaces is occupi

Committing patches and other conventions (Was: Re: About GSOC)

Hi, On Mon, Jun 03 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I have already sent a patch for roundeven implementation but I do not > know how do I commit my changes to GCC. Am I supposed to create a > branch or anything etc? You don't have to create a branch unless you think it would make ease your own

Re: About GSOC.

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > > > NaN, and you should make sure it behaves accordingly. (If it should never > > be called for them, a gcc_assert would be appropriate.) > > I can't find any documentation about how and when to use gcc_assert. > But I used it looking at the com

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. Following patch is tested on following test cases in the testsuite and tests did not fail. I have considered most of the test cases this time hopefully. /* { dg-do link } */ extern int link_error (int); #define TEST(FN, VALUE, RESULT) \ if (__builtin_##FN (VALUE) != RESULT) link_error (

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. > NaN, and you should make sure it behaves accordingly. (If it should never > be called for them, a gcc_assert would be appropriate.) I can't find any documentation about how and when to use gcc_assert. But I used it looking at the comment at its definition and locations it is used, is th

Re: About GSOC.

On Fri, 31 May 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > +/* Return true if integer part of R is even, else return false. */ > + > +bool > +is_even (REAL_VALUE_TYPE *r) > +{ > + if (REAL_EXP (r) <= 0) > +return false; But the integer part (truncation towards 0) of something in the interval (-1, 1) is of c

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I have already sent a patch for roundeven implementation but I do not know how do I commit my changes to GCC. Am I supposed to create a branch or anything etc? Also I have been trying to do folding for constant arguments and inspecting for only func (func (x)) -> func (x) right now. I made s

Re: About GSOC.

On 5/31/19, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 5/30/19 5:38 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:08:45PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: >>> Interesting, I was also puzzled for a moment. But notice that: >>> >>> int main () >>> { >>> _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5f128; >>>

Re: About GSOC.

On 5/30/19 5:38 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:08:45PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: Interesting, I was also puzzled for a moment. But notice that: int main () { _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5f128; _Float128 y = __builtin_roundf128 (x); } behaves as exp

Re: About GSOC.

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:11:18PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > On Thu, May 30 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:08:45PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > >> Interesting, I was also puzzled for a moment. But notice that: > >> > >> int main () > >> { > >> _Float128 x

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. The f128 suffix worked. Based on all the corrections you all pointed out, I have created another patch. I think I took most of the things under consideration but please mention if I missed anything. The following test cases were inspected with this patch. I am not sure if the second test cas

Re: About GSOC.

On Thu, May 30 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:08:45PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: >> Interesting, I was also puzzled for a moment. But notice that: >> >> int main () >> { >> _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5f128; >> _Float128 y = __builtin_roundf128 (x); >

Re: About GSOC.

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:08:45PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Interesting, I was also puzzled for a moment. But notice that: > > int main () > { > _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5f128; > _Float128 y = __builtin_roundf128 (x); > } > > behaves as expected... the difference is of cou

Re: About GSOC.

Hi, On Thu, May 30 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I tried to check the values for significand words using _Float128 > using a test program with value larger than 64 bit. > Test program : > > int main () > { > _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5; (i.e. 2^64 + 1.5 which is > certainly lo

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I tried to check the values for significand words using _Float128 using a test program with value larger than 64 bit. Test program : int main () { _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5; (i.e. 2^64 + 1.5 which is certainly longer than 64-bit) _Float128 y = __builtin_roundf128 (x); }

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. My exams are finally over and I have started to address these points now. I intend to give my most of the time cause of holidays and will try to consider most of the cases for the patch this time . Thanks, -Tejas On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 03:18, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 20 May 2019, Ma

Re: About GSOC.

On Mon, 20 May 2019, Martin Jambor wrote: > in addition to the things already pointed out by Joseph, I have the > following comments. But as Joseph has already pointed out, you should > also test your patch on __float128 types, so please make sure your code > gets invoked and works for something

Re: About GSOC.

Hello Tejas, On Wed, May 08 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I can't figure out from the documentation how to add test cases in the > testsuite and inspect the results. How can I do that? Although, Taking > the mentioned conditions under consideration, I have made another > patch, attached. in

Re: About GSOC.

On Wed, 8 May 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Is this the way test cases should be added and checked? Yes, that's appropriate for tests of roundeven optimization for constant arguments. When you get onto testing roundevenf128 (to cover various cases with 113-bit precision), you'll need to make thos

Re: About GSOC.

On Wed, 8 May 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I can't figure out from the documentation how to add test cases in the > testsuite and inspect the results. How can I do that? Although, Taking > the mentioned conditions under consideration, I have made another > patch, attached. This patch still

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I have added a test case in the testsuite referring to an existing one as "builtin-rounding-1.c" in the /testsuite/gcc.dg/torture directory. As follows : /* { dg-do link } */ extern int link_error (int); #define TEST(FN, VALUE, RESULT) \ if (__builtin_##FN (VALUE) != RESULT) link_error

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I can't figure out from the documentation how to add test cases in the testsuite and inspect the results. How can I do that? Although, Taking the mentioned conditions under consideration, I have made another patch, attached. Thanks, -Tejas On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 09:01, Tejas Joshi wrote:

Re: About GSOC.

I should have taken all the test cases into consideration. Fool of me. I will try to make changes taking all the test cases into consideration along with the testsuite. Thanks. On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 02:31, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > > > Hello. > > As per my un

Re: About GSOC.

On Wed, 8 May 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > As per my understanding, 3.5 would be represented in GCC as follows : > r->uexp = 2 > and > r->sig[2] = 11100 in binary 64 bit. (first 2 bits being 3 and > following 10000 being 0.5, which later only happens for halfway cases) > So, if

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. Thanks for your inputs. If it is meant to be testing whether a value is halfway between two integers, there are two things you need to test. You need to test whether the bit with value 0.5 is 0 or 1 (which this function doesn't seem to test) - and you also need to test whether *all* bits b

Re: About GSOC.

On Sat, 4 May 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > Taking the notes from Joseph under consideration, I have developed a > fairly working patch for roundeven, attached herewith. There are several issues here. One key one is that you haven't added any testcases to the GCC testsuite. I'd expect te

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. Taking the notes from Joseph under consideration, I have developed a fairly working patch for roundeven, attached herewith. I have done bit-wise calculations to check for halfway cases, though HOST_WIDE_INT is only used to check for even and odd numbers (or is it necessary to do bit-wise for

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. Here is the proposal draft for the idea. Please review and suggest changes or modifications. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15DEXa5NZL6Q_X_zlME3NNJw2zVimFWzi16x7cgIDqL0/edit?usp=sharing Thanks, -Tejas On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 01:23, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, Tejas Jos

Re: About GSOC.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I have developed a fairly working patch for roundeven, attaching herewith. > The testcase function as follows : > > double f() > { > double x = 4.5; > double ret = __builtin_roundeven (x); > return ret; > } Tests need to be added to the te

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I have developed a fairly working patch for roundeven, attaching herewith. The testcase function as follows : double f() { double x = 4.5; double ret = __builtin_roundeven (x); return ret; } We can inspect the file foo.c.028t.ccp1, where we can see f() returns value 4.0e+0. I am also

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I had a little pause on roundeven due to seminars in my college. I've tried to implement roundeven but can not figure out what are just minimal needs to roundeven be called for a test program like __builtin_roundeven(); Also, build exited returning status as: DEF_INTERNAL_FLT_FN (ROUNDEVEN)

Re: About GSOC.

Hi. Although now, I am unable to build the compiler. The build exited returning status as: DEF_INTERNAL_FLT_FN (ROUNDEVEN) has no associated built-in functions I have added the entry in fold_const_call_ss() and do not find any other place to add the case. Here is the latest patch. On Mon, 4 Feb

Re: About GSOC.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 21:27, Tejas Joshi wrote: > > Thanks. > > Did you add an entry for roundeven in builtins.def ? > Yes, I did. > > Find here the attached patch.diff for which I did the changes to > implement roundeven. There might be some unnecessary changes and some > necessary changes which

Re: About GSOC.

Thanks. > Did you add an entry for roundeven in builtins.def ? Yes, I did. Find here the attached patch.diff for which I did the changes to implement roundeven. There might be some unnecessary changes and some necessary changes which have not been made. Regards, -Tejas On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:3

Re: About GSOC.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:10, Tejas Joshi wrote: > > Hello. > I have implemented roundeven function in real.c as follows: (and > respective changes in real.h) It's a better idea to include all changes in patch instead of copy-pasting. Use the command: git diff > patch.diff which will create a file

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I have implemented roundeven function in real.c as follows: (and respective changes in real.h) /* Round X to nearest even integer towards zero. */ void real_roundeven (REAL_VALUE_TYPE *r, format_helper fmt, const REAL_VALUE_TYPE *x) { REAL_VALUE_TYPE t; do_fix_trunc (&t, x);

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. Representations of real numbers in real.c are a little complex to understand right now for me. I am still trying to understand them and figure them out using gdb and cscope. Though conventions are given in comments in real.c, I will still be trying to figure it out. The equation and its bitw

Re: About GSOC.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > function with byte-byte comparison which also include mpfr. (Correct > me if I am wrong.) What is the significance of mpfr related to these > internal representations? real.c provides a fixed-size representation of floating-point numbers that allows for

Re: About GSOC.

It took some time to get know using GDB, but upto some end I got it to work. The enum real_value_class is used to classify the number into zero, normal, infinity and NaN. This class is represented by r->cl in real_value and values in struct real_value are used as flags or representations while stri

Re: About GSOC.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > But I really dont know how to inspect a file like real.h (real_value)/real.c? Use cc1 to build a test program with selected floating-point constants in it. Set breakpoints on appropriate functions in real.c (e.g. related to converting strings for real

Re: About GSOC.

I built gcc as a debuggable compiler as given using -g3. I am using gdb and loaded the cc1 using: gdb --args cc1 with output as: Successfully loaded GDB hooks for GCC But I really dont know how to inspect a file like real.h (real_value)/real.c? Thanks. -Tejas On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 08:28, Tej

Re: About GSOC.

> differ. (It's the unoptimized, stage1 cc1 that should be run under a > debugger. See for more details.) Hello. I normally configure GCC by (as you told) /configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib And further as told in <

Re: About GSOC.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote: > the number like nan or normal in the functions. Though, attributes of > struct real_value are pretty unclear to me regarding to the number it > represents. (Am I right within this grasp?). It may be helpful to run the compiler under a debugger to examine

Re: About GSOC.

Hello. I've been inactive for some time due to exams but I have been studying the real.h and IEEE 754 floating point format as far as I could. > floating-point built-in functions. That means you should instead > understand REAL_EXP and the significands of floating-point values, and In GCC's repr

Re: About GSOC.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Tejas Joshi wrote: > About roundeven, there might be need to add case to > expand_builtin_int_roundingfn similar to > ceil, for expansion. > But how is round() expanded since there's no > entry for it in expand_builtin_int_roundingfn ? Please see the comment above expand_buil

Re: About GSOC.

About roundeven, there might be need to add case to expand_builtin_int_roundingfn similar to ceil, for expansion. But how is round() expanded since there's no entry for it in expand_builtin_int_roundingfn ? Also, is it right to have an added case for roundeven in convert.c along CASE_FLT_FN (BUILT

Re: About GSOC.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > this seems related to your proposal GSoC proposal in the beginning > of this year. Do you have any comments about Tejas's idea? Do you My proposal was designed so that it would be possible to do some small piece, that is useful by its

Re: About GSOC.

Hi Joseph, this seems related to your proposal GSoC proposal in the beginning of this year. Do you have any comments about Tejas's idea? Do you think this would be a good (part of) a GSoC project next year? Thanks a lot, Martin On Sat, Oct 13 2018, Tejas Joshi wrote: > Hello. > I reached ask

About GSOC.

Hello. I reached asking about GCC GSoC project about adding and folding functions like roundeven. I could not apply for the idea this year but interested in the peoject and really hoping it would be carry forwarded. Since I've been studying source code and about the project, I think working on this

Re: About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects

On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:27 AM, guray ozen wrote: > Hello, > > I'm master student at high-performance computing at barcelona > supercomputing center. And I'm working on my thesis regarding openmp > accelerator model implementation onto our compiler (OmpSs). Actually i > almost finished implementat

Re: About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects

Hi Güray! Giving some pointers here (but this is not a complete list), to announcements and a few discussion threads, that should already answer some of your questions, give an idea who's currently working on what:

Re: About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects

s, > Evgeny. > > > -Original Message- > From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of > guray ozen > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:27 PM > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects > > Hello, > > I

RE: About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects

bject: About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects Hello, I'm master student at high-performance computing at barcelona supercomputing center. And I'm working on my thesis regarding openmp accelerator model implementation onto our compiler (OmpSs). Actually i almost finished implementation of all

About gsoc 2014 OpenMP 4.0 Projects

Hello, I'm master student at high-performance computing at barcelona supercomputing center. And I'm working on my thesis regarding openmp accelerator model implementation onto our compiler (OmpSs). Actually i almost finished implementation of all new directives to generate CUDA code and same impl

an idea about GSOC 2013

Hi all: I'm a student from Peking University, China. Recently i study the loop parallel on multicore computer. And i also find that this year's GCC GSOC has the tasks about the loop unrolling. So i want to find out if i can do something to improve the loop proformance on gcc. i hope to discuss this