On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 23:07 +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:36 PM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: question about gtype-desc.c
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 0
Hi -
There appears to have been a problem with bernie's cron-based
git-svn-fetch job, due to a corrupted (emptied) .git/svn/.cache/XXX.db
file. With that file removed, the cron job is running again. A
little bit extra logging was added to help pinpoint the cause next
time.
- FChE
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:36 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: question about gtype-desc.c
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:26:20PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > > > gtype-desc.c:81
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:26:20PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > > gtype-desc.c:8176: error: âstruct gimple_omp_for_iterâ has no member
> > > named âloop_countâ
> > > gtype-desc.c:8178: error: âstruct gimple_omp_for_iterâ has no member
> > > named âgrainâ
> > >
> > > These files are in the build
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:23 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: question about gtype-desc.c
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:12:13PM +, Iye
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:12:13PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Jakub,
> I think I have found a fix to _Cilk_for to be structured the way you
> requested. I am currently trying to clean up my code so that I can send you a
> patch.
>
> Now, I am trying to remove the 2 fields I
Hello Jakub,
I think I have found a fix to _Cilk_for to be structured the way you
requested. I am currently trying to clean up my code so that I can send you a
patch.
Now, I am trying to remove the 2 fields I put in gimple_omp_for_iter:
loop_count and grain. But, it is giving th
Revised versions of parts 3 and 4 are now available:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1789.pdf
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1790.pdf
(note that these are not yet expected to address all comments on the
previous versions; see also N1791 and N1792, with minutes
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:59:45PM +, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Don't know if anybody noticed but something's wrong with the git repo. It's
> lagging behind. Last commit there was:
> 18 hours ago tejohnson 2014-02-03 Teresa Johnson
>
> which was certainly not the last commit on trunk.
I b
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-08/msg00259.html
There are some concerns, but it would be interesting to do some
benchmarking of this.
David
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> One of biggest issues we have with GCC vectorization is bloated code size.
> For examp
Hi,
One of biggest issues we have with GCC vectorization is bloated code size.
For example, vectorized version is 2.5 times of non-vectorized one for the
following simple code. One reason is that GCC often creates one loop copy
because of aliasing/alignment and one epilog loop because of loop itera
Since the owner of the repo http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=summary is
marked as being: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
moving this thread of the gcc mailing list.
Paulo Matos
-Original Message-
From: gcc-help-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-help-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
Of Paulo Matos
Sent: 04
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2014.02.04 at 12:36 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> Ping ?
>
> Patches should be posted to the gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org list.
> Please follow up there.
Redirected to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org list. I apologize for posting here.
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
