Re: LOG_LINKS field not set because of gcse1 (or fwprop1) pass

2006-08-13 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: Today, I had a look at the code I get for __gcc_bcmp() from libgcc2.c. I saw a regression from decw%ax je .L2 to movw%ax,%cx ; register allocation decw%cx movw%cx,%ax ; register allocat

Re: How to GTYize a struct properly?

2006-08-13 Thread Daniel Berlin
Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > Hi, > > For typed GC allocation I've to add GTY markers for a few datatypes. > An example from value-prof.h: > > Before: > > struct histogram_value_t > { > struct > { /* <--- line 48, error below occurs here */ > tree value; /*

LOG_LINKS field not set because of gcse1 (or fwprop1) pass

2006-08-13 Thread Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
Today, I had a look at the code I get for __gcc_bcmp() from libgcc2.c. I saw a regression from decw%ax je .L2 to movw%ax,%cx ; register allocation decw%cx movw%cx,%ax ; register allocation andw%cx,%cx

Re: type consistency of gimple

2006-08-13 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I think this is a question of priorities. It's relatively > straightforward to fix the compiler to generate type-consistent GIMPLE: > you write consistency-checking routines and then you just fix all the > problems that arise, by inserting

Re: type consistency of gimple

2006-08-13 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 12:55 -0600, Jeffrey Law wrote: > Thus the existence of some implicit type conversions. IIRC the > places where these occur or occurred at one time or we pondered > allowing are: > > 1. MODIFY_EXPRs where the RHS can be implicitly converted to the > type of the LHS

Re: type consistency of gimple

2006-08-13 Thread Jeffrey Law
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > (In my opinion, it doesn't really matter if MODIFY_EXPR is treated as > doing an implicit conversion; the important thing is that the set of > places where implicit conversions are performed be both limited and > documented. If we save ton

How to GTYize a struct properly?

2006-08-13 Thread Laurynas Biveinis
Hi, For typed GC allocation I've to add GTY markers for a few datatypes. An example from value-prof.h: Before: struct histogram_value_t { struct { /* <--- line 48, error below occurs here */ tree value;/* The value to profile. */ tree stmt;

Re: type consistency of gimple

2006-08-13 Thread Mark Mitchell
Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type > consistency at the gimple level. They told me that Andrew was in the > process of making gimple properly type consistent. I think that there is widespread consensus that GIMPLE should ideally be

Re: #pragma once

2006-08-13 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 19:48 +0300, Drgt wrote: > Hi. > > It seems, that "#pragma once" isn't in ISO, and will never be, especially > because it is Microsoft (am I right ?) C extension. > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg01887.html) #pragma once has not been removed and in fact the opposite h

Re: #pragma once

2006-08-13 Thread Robert Dewar
Drgt wrote: Hi. It seems, that "#pragma once" isn't in ISO, and will never be, especially because it is Microsoft (am I right ?) C extension. Why not implement it yourself and propose a patch.

#pragma once

2006-08-13 Thread Drgt
Hi. It seems, that "#pragma once" isn't in ISO, and will never be, especially because it is Microsoft (am I right ?) C extension. (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg01887.html) But I still asking GCC developers, that this simple-in-use thing would be in GCC, and you not "play football" with it

Re: bug in 4.1.1?

2006-08-13 Thread Andrew Pinski
> > When compiling the following the code with gcc 4.1.1 without > optimization, the output is wrong. > > gcc -v is > > Using built-in specs. > Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu > Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/home/jb/local > Thread model: posix > gcc version 4.1.1 > > <=code=> > > #

bug in 4.1.1?

2006-08-13 Thread jimmy
When compiling the following the code with gcc 4.1.1 without optimization, the output is wrong. gcc -v is Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/home/jb/local Thread model: posix gcc version 4.1.1 <=code=> #include int main() {

Re: reload getting the mode of (subreg:HI (reg:QI pseudo)) wrong

2006-08-13 Thread Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:21:05AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > Probably the compiler doesn't in general like a paradoxical subreg that > can take more hard regs than its SUBREG_REG. I think this is probably > something that can be worked around with a proper combination of > MODES_TIEABLE_P,

Re: volatile qualifier hurts single-threaded optimized case

2006-08-13 Thread Richard Guenther
On 8/13/06, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Guenther wrote: > bits/atomicity.h has volatile qualifiers on the _Atomic_word* > arguments to > the __*_single and __*_dispatch variants of the atomic operations. This > huts especially the single-threaded optimization variants which

Re: volatile qualifier hurts single-threaded optimized case

2006-08-13 Thread Paolo Carlini
Richard Guenther wrote: bits/atomicity.h has volatile qualifiers on the _Atomic_word* arguments to the __*_single and __*_dispatch variants of the atomic operations. This huts especially the single-threaded optimization variants which are usually inlined. Removing those qualifiers allows to

volatile qualifier hurts single-threaded optimized case

2006-08-13 Thread Richard Guenther
bits/atomicity.h has volatile qualifiers on the _Atomic_word* arguments to the __*_single and __*_dispatch variants of the atomic operations. This huts especially the single-threaded optimization variants which are usually inlined. Removing those qualifiers allows to reduce code size significant