On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
is approved and committed first.
Thanks,
Uros.
>>>
>>> Thanks for review!
>>>
>>> Attached is a version to be committed. The only difference from
2013/10/24 Uros Bizjak :
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>> On 01 Oct 20:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
>>> is approved and committed first.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Uros.
>>
>> Thanks for review!
>>
>> A
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 01 Oct 20:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
>> is approved and committed first.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Uros.
>
> Thanks for review!
>
> Attached is a version to be committed. Th
On 01 Oct 20:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
> is approved and committed first.
>
> Thanks,
> Uros.
Thanks for review!
Attached is a version to be committed. The only difference from the previous
one is BOUND_MODE renamed to PO
2013/10/24 Jeff Law :
> On 10/23/13 04:57, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2013-10-23 Ilya Enkovich
>>
>> * mode-classes.def (MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS): New.
>> * tree.def (POINTER_BOUNDS_TYPE): New.
>> * genmodes.c (complete_mode): Support MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS.
>> (POINT
On 10/23/13 04:57, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2013-10-23 Ilya Enkovich
* mode-classes.def (MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS): New.
* tree.def (POINTER_BOUNDS_TYPE): New.
* genmodes.c (complete_mode): Support MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS.
(POINTER_BOUNDS_MODE): New.
(make_pointer_
eOn 22 Oct 22:55, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/17/13 02:18, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of
> >MPX ISA support patch
> >(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
> >
> >Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64
On 09/17/13 02:18, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of MPX
ISA support patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2013-09-16
On 10/22/13 13:31, Richard Henderson wrote:
Yes, which is where I believe the new types come from as well.
OK. Thanks for clarifying. I'm about to go offline for a few hours,
but will start working my way through the MPX stuff.
jeff
On 10/22/2013 12:18 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> The only way I could think to positively ensure that normal operations
>> didn't get implemented via mpx insns is to describe the new patterns
>> with distinct modes.
> Presumably once we have a distinct mode, we do the right magic in
> HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK
On 10/22/13 13:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/21/2013 11:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
So why are bounds distinct modes?Is there some inherent reason why bounds
are something other than an integer mode (MODE_INT)?
I suggested the distinct modes during the NDA phase.
The primary reason for th
On 10/21/2013 11:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> So why are bounds distinct modes?Is there some inherent reason why bounds
> are something other than an integer mode (MODE_INT)?
I suggested the distinct modes during the NDA phase.
The primary reason for this is that MPX is designed to be kind of
bac
2013/10/21 Jeff Law :
> On 10/15/13 07:31, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> could please someone look at this small patch? It blocks approved MPX
>> ISA support on i386 target.
>
>
diff --git a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi b/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
index 1d62223..02b1214 100644
--- a/gcc
On 10/15/13 07:31, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hey guys,
could please someone look at this small patch? It blocks approved MPX
ISA support on i386 target.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi b/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
index 1d62223..02b1214 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
@@ -1382,6 +1382,10
Hey guys,
could please someone look at this small patch? It blocks approved MPX
ISA support on i386 target.
Thanks,
Ilya
2013/10/2 Ilya Enkovich :
> Ping
>
> 2013/9/17 Ilya Enkovich :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of
>> MPX ISA support patch
Ping
2013/9/17 Ilya Enkovich :
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of MPX
> ISA support patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. Is it OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> --
>
> gcc/
>
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >> >> The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
>> >> >> please first get target-independent changes reviewed and committed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you mean I should move bound type and mode declaration into a
>> >>
On 26 Sep 23:12, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>
> >> >> The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
> >> >> please first get target-independent changes reviewed and committed.
> >> >
> >> > Do you mean I should move boun
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >> The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
>> >> please first get target-independent changes reviewed and committed.
>> >
>> > Do you mean I should move bound type and mode declaration into a separate
>> > p
On 16 Sep 11:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
> > 2013/9/11 Uros Bizjak :
> >>
> >
> > Hi Uros,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the review!
> >
> >> The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
> >> please first get target-indepe
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2013/9/11 Uros Bizjak :
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> Ping^4
>>>
>>> Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
>>> specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
>>>
>>> Than
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Did you check the above with x32, where Pmode != word_mode on x86_64?
>>> The inner UNSPEC will be generated in SImode, but the matching pattern
>>>
>>> +(define_insn "*_mk"
>>> + [(set (match_operand:BND 0 "register_operand" "=B")
>>> +(un
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Did you check the above with x32, where Pmode != word_mode on x86_64?
>> The inner UNSPEC will be generated in SImode, but the matching pattern
>>
>> +(define_insn "*_mk"
>> + [(set (match_operand:BND 0 "register_operand" "=B")
>> +(uns
2013/9/11 Uros Bizjak :
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Ping^4
>>
>> Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
>> specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>>
>> 2013/9/2 Ilya Enkovich :
>>> Ping^3
>>>
>>> Attache
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Ping^4
>
> Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
> specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya
>
> 2013/9/2 Ilya Enkovich :
>> Ping^3
>>
>> Attached is the same patch but against the cu
Ping^4
Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
Thanks,
Ilya
2013/9/2 Ilya Enkovich :
> Ping^3
>
> Attached is the same patch but against the current trunk.
>
> 2013/8/26 Ilya Enkovich :
>> Ping
>>
>> 2013/8/19 Ilya E
Ping
2013/8/19 Ilya Enkovich :
> Ping
>
> 2013/8/12 Ilya Enkovich :
>> 2013/8/10 Joseph S. Myers :
>>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
Hi,
Here is updated version of the patch. I removed redundant
mode_for_bound, added comments to BOUND_TYPE and added -mmpx option
Ping
2013/8/12 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2013/8/10 Joseph S. Myers :
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is updated version of the patch. I removed redundant
>>> mode_for_bound, added comments to BOUND_TYPE and added -mmpx option.
>>> I also fixed bndmk/bndldx/bndstx const
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is updated version of the patch. I removed redundant
> mode_for_bound, added comments to BOUND_TYPE and added -mmpx option.
> I also fixed bndmk/bndldx/bndstx constraints to avoid incorrect
> register allocation (created two new constraints
2013/8/8 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> > That is not a big issue to rename generic names. But I'm just still
>> > trying to choose proper names. I looked into -fbounds-check but its
>> > description already mention C/C++ and its semantics differs from what
>> > n
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > That is not a big issue to rename generic names. But I'm just still
> > trying to choose proper names. I looked into -fbounds-check but its
> > description already mention C/C++ and its semantics differs from what
> > new instrumentation does. I conside
2013/8/8 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2013/8/8 Joseph S. Myers :
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I've updated MPX Wiki page
>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
>>> I added instrumentation description, programming model description
2013/8/8 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've updated MPX Wiki page
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
>> I added instrumentation description, programming model description,
>> differences with other checke
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've updated MPX Wiki page
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
> I added instrumentation description, programming model description,
> differences with other checkers, implementation details.
Thanks
Hi All,
I've updated MPX Wiki page
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
I added instrumentation description, programming model description,
differences with other checkers, implementation details.
What about the first patch? Should I post next patches in th
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > Usually also new instructions have a -m option to enable them, but you
> > don't have that here either. I realise the instructions are NOPs on
> > processors not supporting them (all processors not supporting them?), but
> > given that the availabilit
2013/7/25 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> Well, this patch does not introduce any changes on user-visible level.
>> It just adds MPX instructions support to i386 target. Usually each new
>> x86 instruction has corresponding builtin function and therefore is
>> pro
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Well, this patch does not introduce any changes on user-visible level.
> It just adds MPX instructions support to i386 target. Usually each new
> x86 instruction has corresponding builtin function and therefore is
> provided with a testcase. But MPX inst
2013/7/24 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> Here is a patch which adds support for new instructions from Intel
>> Memory Protection Extensions (MPX) ISA [1]
>>
>> This patch introduces bound type, modes, registers and all MPX instructions.
>>
>> Control transfer ins
39 matches
Mail list logo
