This patch is for the bug 746:
http://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=746
It looks fine to me. Please remember to add the bug# to your commit log.
2011/3/30 Richard D. Li
> Hi,
>
> Could a gatekeeper review this patch?
>
> The bug happens in function Is_Aggregate_Init_Zero_Struct,
> which was a
Correction. Fred's mail to me and a couple of OSG member did not
include you. But the mail is a summary of what he conveyed to you
about OSG's limitation, attitude and willingness to cooperate with
Pathscale in the future
Sun
2011/4/1 Sun Chan :
> Let me remind you of Fred's mail to you, me and a
Let me remind you of Fred's mail to you, me and a couple of other OSG
members. The gist of that mail talked about concerns and current
limitations of OSG and what OSG is working on to alleviate the
limitations so that fruitful discussion can move forward with
Pathscale.
Sun
2011/4/1 "C. Bergström"
Sun Chan wrote:
> Christopher,
> This is misleading at the very least. OSG is in the process of trying
> to figure out what is the right and legal way to work with Pathscale.
> And you know this too. I don't know why you keep saying in public OSG
> is unwilling to work with Pathscale. This might ha
And find_base_attr() works as well as find_left_attr() when opnd is not struct.
Pallavi, this fix looks good to me.
Thanks,
Michael Lai
From: Mathew, Pallavi [mailto:pallavi.mat...@amd.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:45 PM
To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Open64-devel] Code
Christopher,
This is misleading at the very least. OSG is in the process of trying
to figure out what is the right and legal way to work with Pathscale.
And you know this too. I don't know why you keep saying in public OSG
is unwilling to work with Pathscale. This might have taken longer than
you w
Doug Gilmore's post earlier today on an optimizer change in the Open64
compiler suite to speed integer division reminded me that it is worth
posting pointers to published research on that problem from the last
couple of decades, with the most recent from January 2011. The
entries below are culled
Mathew, Pallavi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Appended below is a proposed fix ported from PathScale 3.3 beta.
> Sample program exposing the error and the IR dumps before and after
> the fix are attached and also available in the bug-report.
>
> Can a gatekeeper please review the patch?
>
This is poss
strange that the original code turned off simplifier first and tries
to do that locally. Does anyone know why? These kind of thing is best
done in the simplifier and you wouldn't need this change. On
principle, we don't want to have to deal with all kinds of
"canonicalization" everywhere, do we?
Su
Thx!
The fix should be fine
Sun
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Ye, Mei wrote:
> Yes, it is done at Preopt. It is a separated invocation of "Pre_Optimizer".
> The major reason is the availability of CFGs.
>
> -Mei
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
> Sent:
Yes, it is done at Preopt. It is a separated invocation of "Pre_Optimizer".
The major reason is the availability of CFGs.
-Mei
-Original Message-
From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:18 PM
To: Gilmore, Doug
Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Su
Hi,
Appended below is a proposed fix ported from PathScale 3.3 beta. Sample program
exposing the error and the IR dumps before and after the fix are attached and
also available in the bug-report.
Can a gatekeeper please review the patch?
Thanks.
Pallavi
Index: osprey/crayf90/fe90/s_io.c
==
just curious, and probably not related to this bug directly. This
phase is done at Preopt?
Sun
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Gilmore, Doug wrote:
> I attached the test and patch that were already attached to the bug.
>
> transcript of session that reproduces bug:
> $ openf90 bug757.f90 -mso
I attached the test and patch that were already attached to the bug.
transcript of session that reproduces bug:
$ openf90 bug757.f90 -mso -O3 -c
### Assertion failure at line 458 of
/scratch/dgilmore/sot-pp1/bd/osprey/../../osprey/be/opt/opt_wn.cxx:
### Compiler Error in file ./gfort
I attached the test and patch that were already attached to the bug.
The text in the comment associated with patch attachment is:
The comment above the code I changed is:
// For example,
//I4I4LDID 41 <1,4,.preg_I4> T<4,.predef_I4,4> # i
//U4INTCONST 8 (0x
Author: jaewook
Date: 2011-03-31 13:04:20 -0400 (Thu, 31 Mar 2011)
New Revision: 3530
Modified:
trunk/osprey/be/cg/calls.cxx
trunk/osprey/be/cg/register.cxx
trunk/osprey/be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx
trunk/osprey/be/cg/x8664/cgemit_targ.cxx
trunk/osprey/be/cg/x8664/exp_loadstore.cxx
trunk/
16 matches
Mail list logo
