Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110712 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110712/
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 Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:38:34PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> How do I write a pre-reload combine + pre-reload split correctly?
> I'd like to avoid clobber reg.
>
> Thanks much for any hint.
The move patterns are always kind of funny, particularly during register
allocation.
Lets see given
> "David" == David Malcolm writes:
David> This would be good. However, looking at, say,
David> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Tree-SSA-passes.html#Tree-SSA-passes
David> I don't see meaningful per-pass anchors there. I'm not familiar with
David> gcc's documentation toolchain; is ther
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 08:34 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
> > You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously de
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:15 -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
>> settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
>> dump properties and TODOs.
>
> Thanks!
>
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:15 -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
> settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
> dump properties and TODOs.
Thanks!
I got a bit mystified by:
$ gcc -fdump-passes test.c
cc1: e
On 11-07-12 12:52 , Philip Herron wrote:
Would Gcc internals documentation count or is it more for a whole
project documentation work? I probably missed the thing about this in
London since i had to leave on the Sunday morning.
I am kind of interested but i am unsure what kind of documentation
On 10 July 2011 22:42, ismail kuru wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am one of GSOC students. We have started the project with doing some
> experiments for checking the compatibility of
> OpenMP threads with [trans-mem] branch of GCC.
> We made a presentation
> (http://www.gsd.inesc-id.pt/~mcouceiro/eurotm/1s
On 12 July 2011 16:07, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> We discussed this briefly at the recent London meetings. If anyone is
> interested in participating, please contact me.
>
>
> Diego.
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Google Summer of Code 2011 Doc Camp 17 October - 21 October
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 11:43 +0800, Mingjie Xing wrote:
> 2011/7/12 David Malcolm :
> > For fun over the weekend I wrote a python script (using my
> > gcc-python-plugin[1]) to render an SVG diagram of GCC's optimization
> > passes (or, at least, based on my understanding of them).
> >
> > This diagr
FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
dump properties and TODOs.
David
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:07 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:43 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> On 12/07/11 08:2
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:43 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 12/07/11 08:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
> >
> > You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously des
On 12/07/11 17:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
It shows bugs in GCC's pass description, to be clear.
Paolo
That makes sense.
--
PMatos
On 07/12/2011 10:43 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
critical edge...
But the diagram s
We discussed this briefly at the recent London meetings. If anyone is
interested in participating, please contact me.
Diego.
Original Message
Subject:Google Summer of Code 2011 Doc Camp 17 October - 21 October
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:41:02 -0700
From: Carol S
On 07/12/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introdu
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 07/12/11 13:11, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Not familiar with combine inerts, I'd like to know if
>> it's low hanging fruit to teach insn combine to perform
>> optimizations like the following.
>>
>> Suppose following C code, int = HI
>>
>> int y15;
>> int x15;
>>
>> void q
On 07/12/11 13:11, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Not familiar with combine inerts, I'd like to know if
> it's low hanging fruit to teach insn combine to perform
> optimizations like the following.
>
> Suppose following C code, int = HI
>
> int y15;
> int x15;
>
> void qmul8_xy (char c, int x, int y)
Not familiar with combine inerts, I'd like to know if
it's low hanging fruit to teach insn combine to perform
optimizations like the following.
Suppose following C code, int = HI
int y15;
int x15;
void qmul8_xy (char c, int x, int y)
{
y15 = y * c;
x15 = x * c;
}
and that the target has
On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> Why not? If extern "C" is used correctly, the result will work just the
>> same,
>> and the improved type checking etc. would be an asset here just as it is
>> elsewhere.
>
> We don't use much C code, so the extra benefits wouldn't really b
> Why not? If extern "C" is used correctly, the result will work just the same,
> and the improved type checking etc. would be an asset here just as it is
> elsewhere.
We don't use much C code, so the extra benefits wouldn't really be useful
to us (we already get much more benefits by having most
On Jul 12, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> I'm not sure because I don't think we want to compile the C files of the Ada
>> runtime with the C++ compiler. We want to do that only for the compiler.
>
> Right, we definitely don't want to use the C++ compiler for building the
> Ada run-t
On 12/07/11 08:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
> The problem is that the patches links gnattools unconditionally with
> g++. It should depend on --enable-build-with-cxx instead.
Yes, that part was wrong, it will be dropped, we don't want to use g++ here.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 07/12/2011 10:00 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
But your patch isn't necessary to do that, the C files are already compiled
with the C++ compiler as of today; the only issue is at the linking stage.
The problem is that the patches links gnattools unconditionally with
g++. It should depend on --e
> But apparently they already are (when building the compiler), otherwise
That's different: some parts of the run-time is used with a native compiler to
bootstrap GNAT.
The GNAT run-time is built separately using the target compiler (potentially
different from the native compiler), so bootstrappi
> Perhaps it is better to always build those files with cc, perhaps not.
> Since there are two versions of the Ada RTL, the one in the compiler and
> the one in libada, my questions are:
>
> 1) Do they share any object files when not cross-compiling?
>
> 2) If not, is using C++ for the former okay?
> Right, we definitely don't want to use the C++ compiler for building the
> Ada run-time.
OK, so the only needed Makefile change is to gcc-interface/Make-lang.in:
Index: ada/gcc-interface/Make-lang.in
===
--- ada/gcc-interface/Make-
I have a test program written in UPC that takes a long time to compile
on Mac OS X. This is caused by the var_tracking code that I think is
getting erroneously enabled for no-optimization case - only "-g" option
is used on a command line.
When process_options (in toplevel.c) is called, flag_va
On 07/12/2011 08:54 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> I'm not sure because I don't think we want to compile the C files of the Ada
>> > runtime with the C++ compiler. We want to do that only for the compiler.
>
> Right, we definitely don't want to use the C++ compiler for building the
> Ada run-time.
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
critical edge...
Paolo
31 matches
Mail list logo
