DJ Delorie writes:
> JUMP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
> LABEL_ALIGN_AFTER_BARRIER_MAX_SKIP
> LOOP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
> LABEL_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
>
> None of these macros take any parameters, but for optimal performance
> on RX, it's key to match the max_skip with the size of the following
> opcode - there's a pena
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 21:09, Jack Howarth wrote:
> When do you think we may start to see the vectorizations in
> Gr1 exceed those from Gr0?
I know at least of one case http://gcc.gnu.org/PR43423 that is still
not vectorized and that would benefit of the -fgraphite-identity (that
does iterati
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:47:53PM -0500, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran the following script to gather data with trunk (from 20100615)
> and Graphite branch (today).
>
> for i in `ls -1 *.f90`; do
> echo -n $i
> $FC $OPT -c ./$i &> out
> grep "LOOP VECTORIZED" out | wc
> done
>
Joseph Myers, Richard Guenther, and I will be hosting the second GCC
Release Manager Q&A on Thursday, August 5th at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight
Time. (Jakub Jelinek is unfortunately unable to attend.)
As before, feel free to put questions that you would like to ask on this
Wiki page:
if you will be
Hi,
I ran the following script to gather data with trunk (from 20100615)
and Graphite branch (today).
for i in `ls -1 *.f90`; do
echo -n $i
$FC $OPT -c ./$i &> out
grep "LOOP VECTORIZED" out | wc
done
The following columns correspond to the number of lines reported by wc.
Trunk0: OP
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100727 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100727/
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
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we
> think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal consequences,
> they put us in this messy situation, they deal with it.
We should not distribute things in violation of their licenses;
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Please, members of the SC, make this case.
Done. I, too, find the removal of freedoms that the incompatible GNU
licenses (GPLv2 vs GPLv3, GPL vs GFDL,...) create rather unacceptable.
Gerald
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
>> We might need to go in the other direction (less radical, but enough to
>> solve the immediate problem). What if only constraints files are
>> dual-licensed (GPL3+ or GFDL) for now? Then documentation can be
>> generate
JUMP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
LABEL_ALIGN_AFTER_BARRIER_MAX_SKIP
LOOP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
LABEL_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
None of these macros take any parameters, but for optimal performance
on RX, it's key to match the max_skip with the size of the following
opcode - there's a penalty only if you branch to an opcode
Joe Buck wrote:
> We might need to go in the other direction (less radical, but enough to
> solve the immediate problem). What if only constraints files are
> dual-licensed (GPL3+ or GFDL) for now? Then documentation can be
> generated from them and we've at least solved that problem. If RMS ag
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:53:48AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL, which
> would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass muster with
> RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits relicensing GPL'd
> content unde
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>> I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL,
>> which would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass
>> muster with RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits
>> relicensing GPL'd content under the GFDL, by anyone.
> I like th
> I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL,
> which would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass
> muster with RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits
> relicensing GPL'd content under the GFDL, by anyone. Movement in
> that direction should no
> gcc.gnu.org will be preferrable, I think. That allows a number of us
> to help out if neede, re-running scripts, etc.
Right. The Makefiles are set up for this now.
> For the time being I suggest to apply the patch below, though. What
> we have in place as of today simply is broken (and has
Robert Dewar wrote:
>> I'm disappointed that a license "improvement" (changing GPL to GFDL on
>> manuals) has made it impossible to do something that we, as developers,
>> used to be able to do (when documentation was under the GPL we could
>> move things back and forth between code and documentat
16 matches
Mail list logo
