I have been following this discussion for quite a while now, guess
it's the right time to introduce myself as one of the newcomers.
I had attended the Abstractions in GCC workshop 2012 by Prof. Uday and
his team. It definitely helped me kick start with understanding of GCC
and got me interested; s
I am keeping a "diary" of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
changes, how it does things, so forth.
Please keep one too!
Alec
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 01:57 AM:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am trying to understand the full implications of your statement:
Yes, that's what I say. Any pointer that is dereferenced is first
copied to
an SSA name. Basica
On 01/23/2013 07:38 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Evolving this codebase is largely a thankless and difficult job. It's
> technically interesting to me, but I know I can only do so much.
It's also worth pointing out that historically it's been very
difficult to persuade people to fund this. Many c
On Thursday 24 January 2013 02:32 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
This is very different from putting it as one among so many other things on
the wiki. Look at it from the view point of a newcomer. There are so many
OK, then. Reorganize GettingSt
On 01/24/2013 09:39 AM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> I wasn't sure if taking responsibility automatically grants me the right
> to change what others have put up and that is why I was seeking support
> of the steering committee.
It's not appropriate to involve the every decision, especially when
it's n
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
> I am keeping a "diary" of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
> changes, how it does things, so forth.
> Please keep one too!
Thanks for the suggestion. Will do that from now on.
--
Kartik
http://k4rtik.wordpress.com/
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshina Das
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am currently updating a pass that was made for gcc-4.6.*, so that it
> works for gcc.4.7.2.
>
> In the pass for gcc-4.6.*, a code fragment from tree-ssa-structalias.c
> was picked up and used.
> Given below is the fragment ta
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
>
>
> Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 01:57 AM:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand the full implications of your statement:
>>>
>>>
> Yes, tha
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Uday Khedker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
>>> programme called "Essential Abstractions in GCC" which is aimed at
>>> ta
On Thursday 24 January 2013 03:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/24/2013 09:39 AM, Uday Khedker wrote:
I wasn't sure if taking responsibility automatically grants me the right
to change what others have put up and that is why I was seeking support
of the steering committee.
It's not appropriate
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> But on a serious note, it would be great to view the course material as more
> than documentation. The way there are "official" manuals and official code
> available on the gcc website (I can't have my own manual and call it GCC
> manual, or p
Did anyone read? I hope you see how it is nothing like a strong typedef (as its
called). To me it seems like the strong one is too similar to a class to be
worth adding, especially after reading that paper, it seems like it would allow
new-php-user like behaviour of EVERYTHING IS A CLASS but wit
On 1/24/2013 9:10 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
Alec I am eager to see what you guys think, this is a 'feature' I've
wanted for a long time and you all seem approachable rather than the
distant compiler gods I expected.
I certainly see the point of this proposal, indeed introducing
this kind of strong
On 1/24/2013 10:02 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
What I am not clear about is when an operation is deemed "undefined"
or "implementation defined".
The compiler is free to assume that no arithmetic operation
on signed integers results in overflow. It is allowed to
take advantage of such assumptions
[ gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org ? ]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Hi All,
I have a question on integer overflow and wrap, and GCC optimizations.
I have a small library that uses inline assembly to check OV/CY flags
for both x86/x64 and ARM. x86/x64 uses FLAGS/EFLAGS, while ARM uses
CPSR.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 1/24/2013 10:02 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
>> What I am not clear about is when an operation is deemed "undefined"
>> or "implementation defined".
>
>
> The compiler is free to assume that no arithmetic operation
> on signed integers resu
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Chassin wrote:
i am going slowly i started with gcc flow , data structure and passes .As
Java is my best language , i am dealing with advanced c / c++ learning curve
at same time , one of my targets now is understanding the cgraph data
structure and be able to in
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Chassin wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Please keep this on the list.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Chassin
wrote:
On 01/23/2013 10:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The callgraph isn't the main data structure to modify here. You proba
On 01/24/2013 03:33 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> This is truly undefined, not implementation defined, and
>> if your program has such an overflow, you cannot assume
>> ANYTHING about the generated code.
> Signed integers that suffer overfl
On 01/24/2013 04:02 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
I have a small library that uses inline assembly to check OV/CY flags
for both x86/x64 and ARM. x86/x64 uses FLAGS/EFLAGS, while ARM uses
CPSR.
Please show some sample code.
You can check the flags set by a preceding arithmetic/logical
instructio
On 24/01/13 14:22, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 1/24/2013 9:10 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
Alec I am eager to see what you guys think, this is a 'feature' I've
wanted for a long time and you all seem approachable rather than the
distant compiler gods I expected.
I certainly see the point of this proposal,
On 1/24/2013 10:33 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
In this case, I claim we must perform the operation. Its the result
that we can't use under some circumstances (namely, overflow or wrap).
You do not have to do the operation if the program has an
overflow. The compiler can reason about this, so for
Hello,
I have just created a new branch, based on the google/gcc-4_7-mobile
branch, for migrating the vtable verification feature from gcc 4.6.3
(on the google/gcc-4_6-mobile-vtable-security branch) to gcc 4.7. The
new branch is branches/google/gcc-4_7-mobile-vtable-security.
I will be maintaini
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Caroline Tice wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just created a new branch, based on the google/gcc-4_7-mobile
> branch, for migrating the vtable verification feature from gcc 4.6.3
> (on the google/gcc-4_6-mobile-vtable-security branch) to gcc 4.7. The
> new branch is br
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 05:38 PM:
Anything I would consider "official courseware" would have to be contributed
to and maintained by the community (of which you can play the main part
of course). Now I don't know whether it is wise to try to ask the FSF if it
wants to
On 01/22/2013 07:42 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
I believe we required an explicit attribute on the forward declaration
in such a case.
The question is, what do we want to do for a user type that, say, has a
std::string field. Rejecting the program would be non-conforming, but
otherwise we're lik
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 05:28 PM:
In the program below, we have a global pointer p that has conditional
assignments before its
use on the RHS of a copy statement.
-
#include
int *
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
> [Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
> relevant. So no fair bugging Jeff about it :)].
Yeah. It was focused on the RTL/md part of GCC, with a few simple
a
On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
relevant. So no fair bugging Jeff about it :)].
Yeah. It was focused
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 19:59 +, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 23/01/13 19:38, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > [ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring in
On 24 January 2013 16:21, Alec Teal wrote:
> That's because this has nothing to do with objects, in the paper that was
> linked (called "strong typing") it implemented new types rather like
> objects, "using score = public int { //definitions }; for example,
> "extending an int" effectively, this i
On 24/01/13 18:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24 January 2013 16:21, Alec Teal wrote:
That's because this has nothing to do with objects, in the paper that was
linked (called "strong typing") it implemented new types rather like
objects, "using score = public int { //definitions }; for example,
"
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal wrote:
> Did anyone read?
I can sometimes take several days to get to reading an email,
particularly when travelling.
> I hope you see how it is nothing like a strong typedef (as its
> called). To me it seems like the strong one is too similar to a
> class to be worth addin
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 1/24/13, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> ...
> If you want your feature in mainline gcc, you will need to convince
> the maintainers that the feature is valuable. Likewise, if you want
> your extension in the C++ language, you will need to convinc
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>> an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
>>
>>
>>> [Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
>>>
FYI:
Lawrence Crowl says "If you want your feature in mainline gcc" not I.
Also I want to be the one to do this feature, implementation.
On 24/01/13 19:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal wrote:
...
If you want your feat
On 01/24/2013 12:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: "toolability" (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code generating par
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
Agreed.
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: "toolability" (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code generat
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >...
> I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
> and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end of GCC is its
biggest part; it is the thi
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>> That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
>> could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
>> the mercy of the full compiler. Additionally, g++ has very low
>> fidelity wrt the input program;
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
How does one engage the C and C++ committees?
http://isocpp.org/forums
--
Marc Glisse
On 01/23/2013 08:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good
marketing machinery
(and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh).
The problem of being on a compiler-only list is that this is becoming a
self-evident truth.
However, as a meteorolog
On 24/01/13 20:18, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
the mercy of the full compiler. Additionally, g++ has very low
f
On 24/01/13 20:16, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end
Hello,
I have an RTL pass that obtains the offset-from-frame-pointer of each stack
variable per function. I get this data after the expand pass has worked
its magic. Anyways, the offset is usually correct. However, I am running into
a case where I see the offset as being 2-word sizes off from wh
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshina Das
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am currently updating a pass that was made for gcc-4.6.*, so that it
> > works for gcc.4.7.2.
> >
> > In the pass for gcc-4.6.*, a code fragment from tree-ss
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:31:50PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> It'd be really cool if GCC could compile to LLVM and also parse it.
There exist a dragonegg plugin to GCC which uses GCC front-end and LLVM
back-end (& middle-end)
http://dragonegg.llvm.org/
Cheers
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH
David Malcolm wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 12:15 AM:
[oh, and Uday: am very much enjoying reading your Data Flow Analysis
book - thanks for writing it! ]
Thanks David!
I am already working on the second version because now I know very many
improvements that I would like to make.
Sh
Toon Moene wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 02:31 AM:
On 01/23/2013 08:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good
marketing machinery
(and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh).
The problem of being on a compiler-only list is that this is b
Hi,
I read code in lower-subreg.c and found GCC only split some of
multi-word mode instructions, like load from memory into pseudo reg,
etc. The related code is in find_decomposable_subregs.
So for below example from PR56102:
double g = 1.0;
double func(int a, double d)
{
if (a > 0)
retur
51 matches
Mail list logo
