On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> See the new bug fixed in r5162 (for the 2.3 branch). mpfr_gamma on
> -11.5 will give you -0 instead of +0.
So I tried that, but mpfr_gamma on that value sets the global underflow
flag. If overflow/underflow are set by mpfr, GCC will intentiona
> >
> > which returns the value of FP with the same type as FP, and tells the
> > compiler that PFP is the expected target of FP. Trival examples:
> >
> > typedef void (*fptr_t)(void);
> >
> > extern void foo(void);
> >
> > void
> > call_fp (fptr_t fp)
> > {
> > /* Call the function
If possible, I agree it seems natural to extend __builtin_expect. My
concern would be backwards compatibility.
Currently, the prototype for __builtin_expect is
long __builtin_expect (long expression, long constant);
Extending it to functions would change it to
T __builtin_expect (T exp
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 04:13:51PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> In the latest batch, I did notice several bugs with relatively exotic
> options (e.g., "-fopenmp", "-ftest-coverage", and "-fmudflap".)
I don't think that the first two are exotic at all. Many developers
use coverage testing extensi
Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:13:37PM -0500, Rob Johnson wrote:
I'm experimenting with the gimple plugin infrastructure and I'm having
trouble instrumenting code in a way that is compatible with the optimizer.
Here's a simple example that is intended to insert the functi
Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Smalltalk example Paolo mentioned will work just fine, GCC won't
> try to inline that function, and I think we should keep it that way.
FWIW Older versions of the Linux kernel used &&label in an inline to
get the current text address for debugging outpu
> Ira Rosen wrote:
> > Here is the link to the vectorizer's documentation:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/vectorization.html
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks, but I take what it says there with some grains of salt.
?? please report any inaccuracies/outdated information you find, I'd like
to fix any
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:13:37PM -0500, Rob Johnson wrote:
> I'm experimenting with the gimple plugin infrastructure and I'm having
> trouble instrumenting code in a way that is compatible with the optimizer.
> Here's a simple example that is intended to insert the function call
> "__mem
