roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com writes:
I am trying to demonstrate my port capabilities.
I am writing an application which needs to use instructions like max
a,b,c,d,e,f where a,b,c are inputs and d,e,f are outputs.
Is that possible to write an intrinsic function for that?
I think not because
I didn't give the full details of the instruction but for example a
max instruction which gets an array and returns both the max value and
its index in the array will need to return more than one argument.
2010/10/26 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com writes:
I am
On 10/25/10 02:46, Frederic Riss wrote:
Hi,
The constant propagation pass propagates constants into the
instructions that accept immediates. I'm trying to find if there's
some CSE pass in GCC that would be able to undo this effect when the
constant is used more than once in the function. I
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
Because the int * could point to unaligned data and there is no access
that would prove otherwise (memcpy accepts any alignment).
As previously discussed, in ISO C storing a pointer in a particular
pointer type or converting to / through that type
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On 10/25/2010 10:34 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
By the way, is there some necessity in accomplishing this by means of
a linked library, as opposed to via a spawned objcopy process?
(elfcpp isn't a *linked* library; it's a C++ template library
If I want the compiler to understand the inline assembly is it
possible to write define_insn which would match the pattern that GCC
creates for the inline assembly and then GCC would be able to 'know'
some attributes about this insn and would be able to parallelize it?
2010/10/26 roy rosen
Hi,
I write a lot of code that emits code and it is a nuisance to try to
keep track of which index values have been initialized and which not.
This initialization extension would be really, really cool and if I
can find some of that mythical copious spare time I may provide
a patch:
int foo[]
On 10/19/10 14:42, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jeff Lawl...@redhat.com writes:
Reload has the ability to replace a pseudo with its equivalent memory
location. This is fine and good.
Imagine:
1. We have a pseudo (call is pseudo A) with a read-only memory
equivalent. Pseudo A does not get a
On 10/26/2010 10:41 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Well, slow on hosts where process creation is slow (just like the separate
gcc/cc1/as/collect2/ld/lto-wrapper/... processes). The separate process
design was probably based on process creation being fast
A lot of this is also historical;
On 10/21/10 22:11, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paul Koningpaul_kon...@dell.com writes:
To take that example, on the pdp11 an SImode is two HImodes. Could
the RTL template in the MD file for, say, addsi3 split that into two
or three insns that operate on HImode values and describe the actual
Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com writes:
A lot of this is also historical; gcc/cc1/as/ld mirror typical UNIX
compilers of the era at which GCC was built. collect2 was presumably
necessary because of dependence on proprietary ld; if we could assume
GNU ld (or GOLD) everywhere, we could
roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com writes:
If I want the compiler to understand the inline assembly is it
possible to write define_insn which would match the pattern that GCC
creates for the inline assembly and then GCC would be able to 'know'
some attributes about this insn and would be able to
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
If
there is any register pressure, B is going to go onto the stack or is
going to force something else onto the stack.
Not today, which is the problem.
Well, I was implicitly anding in the clause if the compiler were
correct.
Ian
On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 01:53, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com
wrote:
Question on movmemm:
Given
extern int *i, *j; void foo (void) { memcpy
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:51:20AM -0400, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On 10/26/2010 10:41 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Well, slow on hosts where process creation is slow (just like the separate
gcc/cc1/as/collect2/ld/lto-wrapper/... processes). The separate process
design was probably based on
On 26/10/2010 17:16, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 01:53, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com
wrote:
Question on movmemm:
Given
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 17:16, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
...
What happens if you dereference i and j before the memcpy in foo? Do you
then get int-sized shared alignment in movmemM?
extern int *i, *j; void foo
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
On 10/25/2010 11:35 AM, Georg Lay wrote:
(insn 22 8 23 2 peep2.c:5 (set (reg:SI 15 d15)
(and:SI (reg:SI 4 d4 [ x ])
(const_int -98305 [0xfffe7fff]))) 143
{*and3_zeroes.insert.{SI}.ic}
(nil))
(insn 23 22 21 2 peep2.c:5 (set (reg:SI 15
roy rosen schrieb:
Thanks Georg,
The -fdump-rtl-combine-details really helps.
Regarding implementing it through cbranchhi4, this is not enough for
me because when getting to this pattern the operands have already been
expanded, and I am trying to prevent that.
Is there a way around it?
On 10/26/2010 07:42 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
I set a break at the end of df_simulate_one_insn_backwards.
CURRENT = *(live-current-bits)
FIRST = *(live-first-bits)
Or call debug_bitmap (). :)
reg 26 (Stackpointer) and reg 27 (return address) do not matter here.
The result ist
insn 10 (CALL)
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 17:16, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
...
What happens if you dereference i and j before the memcpy in foo? Do you
then
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/14 15:54:32:
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20101026 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20101026/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Nothing, you just ran into the lack-of-manpower problem. Sorry! And I
can't even help, I'm not a ppc maintainer. But you definitely didn't do
anything wrong.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Nothing, you just ran into the lack-of-manpower problem. Sorry! And I
can't even help, I'm not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45451
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
06:49:47 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 26 06:49:43 2010
New Revision: 165936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165936
Log:
2010-10-26 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43018
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
06:49:47 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 26 06:49:43 2010
New Revision: 165936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165936
Log:
2010-10-26 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43018
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46177
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46174
Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46172
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45451
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||46174
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46174
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
07:44:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
What about MOLD= for polymorphic variables?
MOLD= should work. Allocate with mold= allocates memory for the effective type
of mold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46171
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-26 07:49:50
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 165452:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-10/msg00636.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46176
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-10-26
08:01:01 UTC ---
Thanks.
Unrolling seems to be part of it, but not all. I rebuilt/retrained with
-fno-unroll-loops
Trained:
textdata bss dec hex
Dear developers,
I read the chapter `Configure' from the `Installing
GCC' documentation today (http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html)
and found the following passage:
--with-sysroot
--with-sysroot=dir
Tells GCC to consider dir as the root of a tree that contains a
(subset of) the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46172
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #10 from Marco van Hulten marco at hulten dot org 2010-10-26
09:13:28 UTC ---
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:37:08 + jvdelisle wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46162
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46170
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46170
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46180
Summary: CSE across calls to fesetround()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46180
Vincent Lefèvre vincent at vinc17 dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46181
Summary: Feature request: free-like attribute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45999
--- Comment #4 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2010-10-26 10:27:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I've backported the fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165658
Thanks for trying the printers and submitting bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46176
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-10-26
10:28:34 UTC ---
Interesting tidbit: the file containing r600_kms_blit_copy -- which grew most
--
didn't get any profile feedback during training, there was no data file.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46180
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45999
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
10:48:23 UTC ---
that must be present on trunk too, right?
if GDB can be built with python 2.4 then our pretty printers should work with
it too, I can change that printer to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45999
--- Comment #6 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2010-10-26 11:29:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
that must be present on trunk too, right?
this is a backport from, so probably trunk is affected too.
if GDB can be built with python
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46182
Summary: Run time check for invalid use of unallocated
allocatable variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-26
12:17:06 UTC ---
First, I'm going to add the new insert overloads to the unordered containers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
12:27:33 UTC ---
taking 'iterator' params for consistency, or 'const_iterator' because we don't
have to maintain compatibility?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-26
12:31:28 UTC ---
I would say const_iterator, consistently with the existing insert and erase
overloads...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
12:39:59 UTC ---
doh, of course, we already use const_iterator in the unordered containers.
sorry!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46161
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46170
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dseketel at redhat
It would be nice to have a run time check for such invalid use of
unallocated allocatable variables (such as -fcheck=use_unalloc).
If you use an unallocated variable you get a segmentation fault.
Isn't this a sufficient runtime check ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45454
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45250
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46174
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domob at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45894
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in calc_dfs_tree, at
dominance.c:396 with -O -fno-dse -fgcse -ftree-pre
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45687
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
13:39:41 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Oct 26 13:39:37 2010
New Revision: 165964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165964
Log:
gcc/:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
13:41:10 UTC ---
Well, the setting of errno by calling another function has similar effects like
calling any other function in between, if you do
float a = sqrtf (x);
foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45687
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #22 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
13:56:46 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 26 13:56:42 2010
New Revision: 165965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165965
Log:
Properly align
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46177
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
vectorizable_reduction (tree-vect-loop.c:4067) with -O
-ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46172
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46165
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46182
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2010-10-26
14:06:55 UTC ---
Forwarded from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-10/msg02167.html
It would be nice to have a run time check for such invalid use of
unallocated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46160
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46157
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46153
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46149
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-4.c FAILs
with -fno-ipa-cp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Summary: Clang creates code running 1600 times faster than
gcc's
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46182
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode j...@jak-linux.org 2010-10-26
14:30:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22162
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22162
Clang's assember
Attaching the assembler output from clang, it should help
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #3 from Julian Andres Klode j...@jak-linux.org 2010-10-26
14:32:27 UTC ---
System information:
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 4.4.5-5'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #11 from Art Haas ahaas at airmail dot net 2010-10-26 14:40:04
UTC ---
I ended up trying the version posted in a follow-up mail:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02065.html
The bootstrap still failed.
I've now got
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
14:47:12 UTC ---
GCC's output is significantly faster at -O3 or without the noinline attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #5 from Julian Andres Klode j...@jak-linux.org 2010-10-26
14:53:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
GCC's output is significantly faster at -O3 or without the noinline attribute
I just tested and at -O3, gcc-4.4 creates slow code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2010-10-26
14:59:18 UTC ---
You get this kind of speedup if the compiler knows that the result of the loop
is
sum=(b*(b-1)-a*(a-1))/2
In which case the timing is meaningless (it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #7 from Julian Andres Klode j...@jak-linux.org 2010-10-26
15:00:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
GCC's output is significantly faster at -O3 or without the noinline
attribute
I just tested and at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46166
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46187
Summary: Invalid instruction suffix generated by %z
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
