GCC 4.6.0 Status Report (2011-01-04), Stage 3 is over

Status == Stage 3 is over and the trunk is now in regression and documentation fixes only mode (operating as if we were on a release branch). This means we are now moving towards a release candidate of GCC 4.6.0 which can materialize once the list of serious regressions no longer contains a

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Richard Guenther writes: >>> >>>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. >>> >

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. > > Wait.  That will change the behaviour of >    gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c > Is that what we want? Does it? I don't t

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: >>>> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: &g

Re: development stage timeline

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other > measure of pressure?  The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does > not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not). > > It would be good to get L

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: >> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: >>> >>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly >>> files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line >>> >>> gcc -o t

Re: [wwwdocs] PATCH for Re: rsync'd repo size

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, DJ Delorie wrote: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/rsync.html says 17 Gb. >>> >>> I just did it, and it's up to 22 Gb. >> >> Thanks for the heads up, DJ!  I had a look, and it is, i

Re: cloog(-parma) 0.16 and ppl 0.11 in infrastructure?

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Sebastian, >    It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at > http://www.cloog.org/ > for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the > infrastructure > directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp site? If so, the ne

Re: RFC: Add 32bit x86-64 support to binutils

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Joseph S. Myers >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> This patch adds 32bit x86-64 support to binutils. Support in compiler,

GCC 4.5.3 Status Report (2010-12-16)

Status == GCC 4.5.2 has been released, the release will be announced after mirrors have catched up. The branch is now open for regression and documentation fixes again. Quality Data Priority # Change from Last Report --- ---

Re: C/C++ extensions for array notations

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to ask the opinion of C/C++ maintainers about the extension > that the Intel compiler proposes for array notations: > http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studio/composer/en-us/2011/compiler_c/index.htm#

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > > > The branch remains frozen and all checkins until after the final release > > of GCC 4.5.2 require explicit RM approval. > > I'd like to get the following three testsuite-only patches

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > >> > > > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10. > >

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

, I'd like to release 4.5.2 early next week. > > > > > > Richard. > > > > > > David Fang > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/ > http://www.achronix.com/ > > -- Richard Guenther Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex

GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

,ppc,ppc64,s390,s390x}-linux are running. Please test it and report any issues to bugzilla. The branch remains frozen and all checkins until after the final release of GCC 4.5.2 require explicit RM approval. If all goes well, I'd like to release 4.5.2 early next week. Richard. -- Ri

GCC 4.5 branch frozen for release (candidate)

The GCC 4.5 branch is now frozen in preparation for a release candidate of GCC 4.5.2 and a release of GCC 4.5.2 about a week later. Please refrain from checking in any patches to the branch without an explicit approval from a release manager. Thanks, Richard.

Re: question about alias-analysis in gcc 4.5

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Eugen Wagner wrote: > Hi, > Are any kinds of flow-dependent points-to analysis computed on gimple > in ssa form? > in which pass? In tree-ssa-structalias.c we compute points-to analysis. It is flow-sensitive only for pointers in SSA form. Richard. > > regards, >

Re: -flto, remove unsued code from output

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Klaus Rudolph wrote: > Hi all, > > I play a bit with lto optimisation. As I see, some functions will be inlined > during link stage which is the expected result. But the function code which > is always inlined is not removed from the output file which will result

Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> Ah, you're using intrinsics.  I thought of re-using the saturating arithmetic >> and types we have, thus basically do >> >>   size = (unsigned sat int)

Re: build_int_cstu does not work as advertised

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > Trunk has this: > > | /* Create an INT_CST node with a CST value zero extended.  */ > | > | static inline tree > | build_int_cstu (tree type, unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cst) > | { > |   return double_int_to_tree (type, uhwi_to_double_int (cst));

Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2010, at 3:19 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > >>> $ clang t.cc -S -o - -O3 -mkernel -fomit-frame-pointer -mllvm >>> -show-mc-encoding >>>        .section        __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instr

Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Joe Buck: >> >>> It's wasted code if the multiply instruction detects the overflow. >>> It's true that the cost is small (maybe just one extra instruction >>> and the same number of te

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "H.J. Lu" writes: > >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" writes: For linker script, archive, DSO and object file without IR, *claimed will return 0 and plugin will save and pass it back to >

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "H.J. Lu" writes: > >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" writes: >>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Are you planning to have the plugin claim all files, eve

Re: Revisit of pr38212 regarding restrict definition

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 30 November 2010 13:53 >> To: Bingfeng Mei >> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: Revisit of pr38

Re: Revisit of pr38212 regarding restrict definition

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Hi, > I am working on how to improve "restrict". I noticed > that my changes lead to failure of pr38212. After looking > at its code, I think the test may not be valid according > to c99 standard. > > C99 standard 6.7.3.1: > > EXAMPLE 4 The ru

Re: new requirement of "constexpr" for static const float data members is too restrictive

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> If you are doing that, why don't you write a simpler code by >> just defining (e.g. initializing) the data member outside the class? > > 'cause I want the compiler to be able to use

Re: profiledbootstrap fails in java with "error: verification failed at PC=8: branch out of range"

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > >>> /home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libjava/classpath/gnu/java/awt/peer/gtk/GtkComponentPeer.java: >>> In class 'gnu.java.awt.peer.gtk.GtkComponentPeer': >>> /home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libjava/classpath/gnu/java/awt/peer/gtk/GtkComponentPeer.j

GCC 4.5.2 Status Report (2010-11-25)

Status == The GCC 4.5 branch is in regression and documentation fixes only mode. A 4.5.2 release is due this year (fingers crossing). There are no serious regressions that would block the release at the moment. Still there are a few wrong-code bugs that can have fixes backported from trunk.

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 24/11/2010 14:17, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> I don't see why RTL optimizers should be different from tree optimizers. > >  I thought half the point of tree-ssa in the first place was to separate > optimisation out

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther : > >> So, Joern, maybe you can clarify what the benefit is in hookizing >> BITS_PER_UNIT? > > The point is that I want to eliminate all tm.h macro uses from the > tree optimizer and f

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: >> Quoting Richard Guenther : >> >>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Joern Rennecke >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm fine

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther : > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Joern Rennecke >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm fine with the RTL optimizers to use target macros, but I'd like the >>> frontends

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:17, Richard Guenther > wrote: > >> And we don't want to pay the overhead of hookization every target >> dependent constant just for the odd guys who want multi-target >> com

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther : > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Joern Rennecke >> wrote: >>> >>> So what are we going to do about all the tree optimizers and frontends >>> that >>> us

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther : > >> Well.  Some things really ought to stay as macros.  You can always >> error out if a multi-target compiler would have conflicts there at >> configure time. > > So what are we

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > If we changed BITS_PER_UNIT into an ordinary piece-of-data 'hook', this > would not only cost a data load from the target vector, but would also > inhibit optimizations that replace division / modulo / multiply with shift > or mask operation

Re: more robust debug_bb?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Hello All, > > While debugging a MELT pass, I am sigsegv in debug_bb. > > The culprit is check_bb_profile which starts with >  if (profile_status == PROFILE_ABSENT) >    return; > and we have in basic-block.h > #define profile_status  

Re: gccgo branch and darwin

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jack Howarth writes: > >> ps Is there a list of targets that the go compiler has been built on? > > It's been built and tested on x86 and x86_64 GNU/Linux and RTEMS. Huh, I wonder why we have frontends that do not even build for all pri

Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote: >> >>> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and >>>

Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote: > >> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and >> > one of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to >> > fix the problem.  All we're changing is whe

Re: GCC-4.5.0 comparison with previous releases and LLVM-2.7 on SPEC2000 for x86/x86_64

2010/11/16 Jan Hubicka : >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> > Fortunately linker plugin solves the problem here and this is why I >> >> > want to >> >> > have it by default.  GCC then can do effectively -fwhole-program for >> >> > binaries >> >> > (since linker knows wh

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/15/10 15:07, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jeff Law  wrote: >>> >>> On 11/08/10 03:49, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:

Re: non-algorithmic maintainers

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > We currently have 3 non-algorithmic maintainers: > > loop optimizer          Zdenek Dvorak           o...@ucw.cz > loop optimizer          Daniel Berlin           dber...@dberlin.org > libcpp                  Tom Tromey              tro...@r

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/08/10 03:49, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Andi Kleen  wrote: >>> >>> Andreas Schwab  writes: >>>> >>>> The asm fails to mention that it modifies *reg

Re: GCC-4.5.0 comparison with previous releases and LLVM-2.7 on SPEC2000 for x86/x86_64

2010/11/15 Jan Hubicka : >> For peak, FDO is the most effective option. It can boost performance >> by 7-10% depending on the program. The options you suggested probably >> won't make too big a dent.  -funroll-loops can hurt performance >> without profiling.  More aggressive inlining, ipa-cp, unswi

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:21:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> So when Richard Gunther says "a memory clobber doesn't cover automatic >> storage", to me that very clearly spells "gcc is buggy as hell". >> Because automatic storage with it

Re: PL/1 frontend

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Merrick, Thomas wrote: > I would like to resurrect the PL/1 frontend which appears to have stopped > development about 3 years ago.  I plan to start with the preprocessor, which > is a PL/1 subset interpreter. > > First of all, is this the correct list to ask que

Re: named address spaces: addr_space_convert never called

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Georg Lay wrote: > Hi, I just started playing around with named address spaces for avr. > Besides general space (ram), I introduced a second one, __pgm, which > shall address program memory where also constants may live. avr is > havard architecture, and both progra

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> Andreas Schwab writes: >>>> >>>> The asm fails to mention that it modifies *regs. >>> >>> I

Re: integral overflow and integral conversions

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > Currently, the middle end seems to use the same rules for handling constant > overflow of integer arithmetic and conversion between integer types: set > TREE_OVERFLOW on the INTEGER_CST if the type is signed and the value doesn't > fit in the

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Andreas Schwab writes: >> >> The asm fails to mention that it modifies *regs. > > It has a memory clobber, that should be enough, no? No. A memory clobber does not cover automatic storage. Btw, I can't see a testcase anywhere so I just assum

Re: GCC vector extensions

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Hariharan Sandanagobalane wrote: > Hi Ian, > Thanks for your help. > > I switched to mainline and the vector extract works a treat. When i tried > vector set, it was still generating suboptimal code. Is this bit of code > still work in progress? I expect so. If yo

Re: GCC trunk revision 166285 passes SPEC CPU 2000/2006

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > FYI, GCC trunk revision 166285 passes SPEC CPU 2000/2006. > It is the first time in a month. Ship it! Richard.

Re: Why is -fstrict-aliasing excluded from function "optimize" attribute?

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 11/03/2010 04:49 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: >> Hello, >> I came across an issue with function "optimize" attribute. The code is like: >> __attribute__((optimize("-fno-strict-aliasing"))) >> void foo() >> { >>    ... >> } >> >> When compiling wi

GCC 4.6.0 Development Stage 1 Ends Now, Stage 3 in effect immediately

We are hereby now officially in Stage 3 (general bugfixes only, no new features). We have accumulated 7 months worth of stage 1 development. Now it's a good time to concentrate on fixing the regressions we introduced and to flesh out fine details of new features. Happy bugfixing, Richard.

Re: dg-require-effective-target & gcc.c-torture suite

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Steve Ellcey writes: > >> I tried creating a proc 'check_effective_target_mempcpy' >> in gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp and using >> >> /* { dg-require-effective-target mempcpy } */ >> >> on the test, but that did not work.  It appears

Re: ipa on all files together

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Hongtao wrote: >  On 11/01/10 20:35, Diego Novillo wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 19:57, Hongtao wrote: >>>  Hi All, >>> >>> While using gcc-4.6 with option -flto, I found that interprocedural >>> analysis were performed on each source file separately. For exampl

Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 11/01/2010 04:06 AM, Geert Bosch wrote: >> >> On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote: >>> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was >>> that there should be at least one default language that requires >>

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Dave Korn writes: > >>   What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader >> interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting object >> format independence equally everywhere for no extra cost. >

Re: movmemm pattern

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > >> On 26/10/2010 17:16, Paul Koning wrote: >>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote: ... What happens if you dereference i and j before the memcpy in foo?  Do you the

Re: movmemm pattern

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > Question on movmemm: > > Given > > extern int *i, *j; > void foo (void) { memcpy (i, j, 10); } > > I would expect to see argument 4 (the shared alignment) to be sizeof(int) > since both argument are pointers to int.  What I get instead is 1.

Re: old aliasing bug: fixed?

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote: >>> int weird(float *fp){ >>>        // access an int as an int (see caller), >>>

Re: Hooks, macros and target configuration

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > My ongoing work to implement the multilib selection changes described > at will in due > course require option-related hooks to be shared between the driver > and the compilers proper (cc1

Re: LTO symtab sections vs. missing symbols (libcalls maybe?) and lto-plugin vs. COFF

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 14/10/2010 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn >> wrote: > >>>  Nor indeed is there any sign of puts, which is what the generated ltrans0.s >>> file ends up

Re: LTO symtab sections vs. missing symbols (libcalls maybe?) and lto-plugin vs. COFF

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > >    Hello list, > >  When I compile this source with -flto: > >> extern int retval; >> int func (void) >> { >>   return retval; >> } > > ... the LTO symbol table contains both symbols: > >> /gnu/binutils/git.repo/obj/ld/test/func.o:     file for

Re: show size of stack needed by functions

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Sebastian wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 H.J. Lu wrote: >> GCC 4.6.0 has -fstack-usage. > Thanks. That's probably the reason I didn't find it in current manuals. > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> The mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for the develop

Re: show size of stack needed by functions

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Sebastian wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 H.J. Lu wrote: >> > gcc can not dump a callgraph.  Both GNU ld and gold can dump a >> > cross-reference table, which is not a call graph but could perhaps be >> >

Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Please also post results for the 4.5 branch.  I think it doesn't make > > any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary > > targets if it

Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, NightStrike wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn > > wrote: > >> On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: > >> > >>> The toolchain is broken once again here: > >>> > >>> x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFI

Re: %pc relative addressing of string literals/const data

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/05/2010 02:40 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> Especially one that doesn't require each function >> to calculate the GOT address in the function prologue(why is that so?) > > Because PIC code can be called from non-PIC code and becaus

Re: constant string changed

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Phung Nguyen wrote: > How can I turn this optimization off? Use -fno-builtin-printf. Richard. > Phung > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0700, Phung Nguyen wrote: >>> When porting GCC on xc16x, I met

Re: Map tree to properties

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Hi All, > > Do we have a mechanism to map a tree or gimple to a series  of > properties so that we can transfer information from one pass to another? No. > Thanks, > Hongtao > Purdue Univeristy >

GCC 4.6.0 Status Report (2010-09-30)

Status == GCC trunk will be in stage1 for roughly another four weeks. This felt like a good time to go over the existing list of regression and start to prioritize them according to our release criteria. This means that regressions on non-primary, non-secondary targets or for languages othe

Re: old aliasing bug: fixed?

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote: > int weird(float *fp){ >        // access an int as an int (see caller), >        // so not an aliasing violation >        return *(int*)fp; > } > int main(int argc, char *argv[]){ >        return weird((float*)&argc); > } > > I just tried th

Re: Worse code generated by PRE

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Hello, > I have been examining a significant performance regression > between 4.5 and 4.4 in our port. I found that Partial Redundancy > Elimination introduced in 4.5 causes the issue. The following > pseudo code explains the problem: > > BB 3

Re: eliminating mpc/mpfr and reducing gmp

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jay K wrote: > > Wow that is fast. > > > My fastest machine, and I have several slower: > > > gmp > time sh -c "CC=gcc-4.2 ./configure none-none-none -disable-shared > -enable-static && make && ssh r...@localhost \"cd `pwd` && make install\"" > real    2m2.594s >

Re: Bugzilla outage Thursday, September 23, 18:00GMT-21:00GMT

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jonathan Wakely writes: > >> Thank you, Frédéric, despite a few bug reports the upgrade went very >> smoothly and it's great that we have a modern version of Bugzilla now. >> >> Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" chec

Re: Interprocedural points-to analysis

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Hi All, > > Has the interprocedural points-to analysis(pass-ipa-pta) been put into > practice, i.e. using the ipa points-to set to aid optimizations? Yes, it improves alias-analysis. The interface to optimizers is the same as local points-to an

Re: Where are the new GCC releases?

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > Hello, > > Something tells me that GCC 4.4.5 and 4.5.2 should have been > released a long time ago, but I don't even see regular GCC > status updates. Are all release managers on leave? What is it that makes you feel that way? ;) Yeah,

Re: How to dump SSA in lto

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Thanks very much. But I still want an option to dump the SSA form > during or after LTO optimizations, such as -fdump-tree-... -fump-tree-... works for LTO optimizations as well. > Hongtao > > > On 09/21/10 10:07, Richard Gue

Re: How to dump SSA in lto

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Hi All, > > > I'm programming in the LTO phase. How can I dump the SSA representation > after a optimization of LTO? For example, if I would like to know the > effect of interprocedural pointer analysis(pass_ipa_pta), how can I dump > the SSA form

Re: Reverse mapping from decl uid

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Uday P. Khedker wrote: > > Given a tree node, we can get its uid by using DECL_UID(node). > > Given a uid, is it possible to directly get the tree node that > corresponds to it? I can of course make a list of nodes that I > am interested in but if there is an API,

Re: PHI nodes undefined

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes: > >> Is there a way I can rebuild PHI nodes info or what's the best way to >> keep track of this each time I change the CFG by adding/removing edges >> and adding new basic blocks? > > I found out

Re: plugin hooks for plugin-provided builtins?

C with the ability to take advantage of GPU > >> running their proprietary OpenCL compilers without asking the user to > >> learn OpenCL. > > > > My understanding is that Gimple does not have the notion of data parallel > > operations. > > There wa

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes: >>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less motivation fo

Re: Updating frequencies and dominators

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19, Paulo J. Matos wrote: >> How can I automatically update dominators? Or do I have to do it for >> each new basic_block I create with recompute_dominator? > > /* Free and compute again all the dominators informat

Re: plugin hooks for plugin-provided builtins?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Hello All, > > I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins. > > The intuition is that some plugins could be pleased if they could add > their own plugins (much like today's plugins can add their own pragmas > or attributes)

Re: Dealing with basic blocks

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am moving basic blocks around and currently the cfg is getting very, > very awkward. My guess is that I am doing something I shouldn't [as > usual]. > > For each SWITCH_EXPR I found on the code I generate a CFG which I ha

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Manuel López-Ibáñez writes: > >> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less >> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs. > > From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to

Re: Rebuilding the cfg

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for: >>> ,

Re: Rebuilding the cfg

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Hello, > > On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for: > , > | int f(int n) > | { > |   switch(n) > |   { > |     case 0: f1("0"); break; > |     case 500: f2("500"); break; > |     case 1000: f3("1000"); break; > |

Re: Frontend pass assumptions

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> >> Which is wrong.  You need to use block_stmt_iterator and >> bsi_remove and ... (I don't remember, 4.3 is so old). >> > > Or I could move the pass to be executed be

Re: Frontend pass assumptions

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on the new pass (previously discussed), to optimise switch > cases. > > I am almost finishing it, however, for practical reasons I am > implementing it first over GCC4.3 and once tested, will port it to svn > trunk an

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher >> wrote: >> >>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations... &

Re: GCC Bugzilla upgrade to version 3.6.2 in progress

2010/9/10 Frédéric Buclin : > Hi all, > > A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database > (snapshot taken yesterday, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2 > is now live at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/. > > Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or brok

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations... > ;-)  I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend > some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end. Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "f

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> >   Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple >> > currently is >> > charged with maintaining their objc

Re: question on points-to analysis

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote: > Hi, > I am studying gcc's points-to analysis right now and encountered a question. > In paper "Off-line Variable Substitution for Scaling Points-to > Analysis", section 3.2 > It says that we should not substitute a variable with other if it is >

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >