I'm trying to figure out whether we can get the SEE and
Autovectorization improvements into 4.2. I'd like to get these changes
in because they will deliver some noticeable improvements in
performance, and because the submitters seem to have tried hard to get
them included.
Roger, I know that you
Mark,
> I'm trying to figure out whether we can get the SEE and
> Autovectorization improvements into 4.2.
And please do not forget:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00689.html (fwprop and
PR/26821)
because, as you yourself wrote:
> I don't think I can competently review these p
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Roger, I know that you reviewed the SEE patches. Is there anything
> more than needs to be done to get them committed, in your view?
As far as I'm aware, we're still just waiting for the Haifa folks to
commit them to mainline. There are a num
Roger Sayle wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Roger, I know that you reviewed the SEE patches. Is there anything
>> more than needs to be done to get them committed, in your view?
>
> As far as I'm aware, we're still just waiting for the Haifa folks to
> commit th
The patches for SEE have been committed today.
The minor style corrections requested by you in the
final review approval will be in a follow-up patch
to be submitted the next week.
Mircea
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:25:22PM +0200, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
> The patches for SEE have been committed today.
>
> The minor style corrections requested by you in the
> final review approval will be in a follow-up patch
> to be submitted the next week.
>
I didn't see you have addressed the i
I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off SEE in
override_options or XFAIL the tests for x86 until that work is committed.
David
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
> infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off SEE in
> override_options or XFAIL the tests for x86 until that work is committed.
Some of
On May 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off
SEE in
override_options or XFAIL the tests f
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:39:58AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
> >>infrastructure to better support x86.
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:26:52PM +0300, Leehod Baruch wrote:
> Please, lets be more precise.
> All the problem you have listed here are problems that relates x86.
> There is no problem on PPC and as far as I know there is no problem
> on other platforms (at least no one complained about it).
> *A
> H J Lu writes:
>> > This is case for all extensions for i386. For x86-64, only
>> > zero_extendsidi2 won't clobber CC.
>> Again, for x86.
HJ> But SEE doesn't provide a way to deal with it.
Um, so extend SEE to better support your needs?
David
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:53:38PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > H J Lu writes:
>
> >> > This is case for all extensions for i386. For x86-64, only
> >> > zero_extendsidi2 won't clobber CC.
> >> Again, for x86.
>
> HJ> But SEE doesn't provide a way to deal with it.
>
> Um, so exten
H. J. Lu wrote:
> export BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SYSROOT_CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-g -O2 -fsee"
> # /configure
> # make BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SY
> That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
> anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
> cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
> these architectures.
Agree. I will check the bootstrapping on x86. (a) see
On 5/5/06, Mircea Namolaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
> anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
> cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
> these architectures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mircea Namolaru wrote:
>> That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
>> anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
>> cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
>> t
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:18:37PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > export BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> > -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SYSROOT_CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-g -O2 -fsee"
> > # /configure
> > # make BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" C
Hi Mircea,
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
> > That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
> > anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
> > cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
> > these archi
I see lots of failures running the testsuite on x86-64 now:
one example:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/2120-2.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for
excess error
s)
Excess errors:
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2120-2.c:11:
internal compiler
error: RTL check: expe
> Given that this is more than a bootstrap problem with non-default flags,
> but testsuite regressions for gfortran and SPEC failures on a primary
> platform, I think this falls under GCC's 48 hour rule. This simply
> formalizes your phrase "short time frame" above, and means that it
you're
> unl
;, Mircea Namolaru/Haifa/[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: Status of SEE and Autovectorization patches?
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Roger, I know that you reviewed the SEE patches. Is there an
22 matches
Mail list logo
