Thomas,
Several SPEC benchmarks are available at no cost for non commercial
usage.
See https://www.spec.org/order.html, you may qualify
Cheers,
Gilles
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> consider this: There is a bug, confirmed by several people. This
occurs
> in c
dropped (unless mandatory).
Cheers,
Gilles
On 4/12/2019 4:53 PM, Bader, Reinhold wrote:
Dear Gilles,
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Gilles Gouaillardet
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. April 2019 02:25
An: Bader, Reinhold ; Paul Richard Thomas
; fort...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches
Betreff: Re: AW
interface
subroutine bar_f08(buf) BIND(C, name="bar_c")
implicit none
!GCC$ ATTRIBUTES NO_COPY_IN :: buf
TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), INTENT(IN) :: buf
end subroutine
end interface
end module
Does this make sense ?
Gilles
On 4/10/2019 4:22 PM, Bader, Reinhold wrote:
Hi Gilles,
I
how this will
break a lot of existing apps (once again, those apps might be incorrect
in the first place, but most of us got used
to them working).
To me, this is a second reason why copy-in is not desirable (at least as
a default option).
Cheers,
Gilles
On 4/9/2019 7:18 PM, Paul
. (gcc
deliberately makes such aggressive optimizations that are known to be
illegal in very rare cases, so marking the variable as volatile is not
a workaround but a requirement)
thanks in advance for the clarification
Gilles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet
gilles.gouaillar
please comment on this issue ?
- is this a bug ?
- is this a feature ? (e.g. a known to be aggressive optimization
that explicitly requires the global variable is declared as volatile)
Thanks and regards,
Gilles
#include stdlib.h
#include malloc.h
int global;
void *hook (size_t alignment, size_t
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 03:15:02PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:58:53AM -0400, S. Gilles wrote:
Thanks for tackling this.
@@ -6858,6 +6858,9 @@
/* 1 if this constructor is erroneous so far. */
static int constructor_erroneous;
+/* 1
test case. If
this is approved, could someone commit it for me, as I do not have
access?
S. Gilles
2014-06-01 S. Gilles sgil...@umd.edu
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c/53119
c/
* c-typeck.c (push_init_level, process_init_element,
pop_init_level): Correct check for zero initialization
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:32 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Sean Callanan wrote:
- Modify the GCC link process to use libltdl and libtool -export-dynamic
Although this may make theoretical sense in terms of the work for a
cross-platform implementation already being
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: gilles dot chanteperdrix at xenomai dot org
GCC target triplet: armeb-unknown-linux-gnueabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38815
--- Comment #1 from gilles dot chanteperdrix at xenomai dot org 2009-01-12
18:03 ---
The following code:
__thread long tl = 42;
long f(void)
{
long *l = tl;
register long r0 __asm__ (r0);
register long *r1 __asm__ (r1);
r0 = 23;
r1 = l
--- Comment #1 from gilles dot chanteperdrix at xenomai dot org 2009-01-05
15:21 ---
The following, even simpler test case:
unsigned long long f(unsigned long long ull)
{
register unsigned long long *__r0 __asm__ (r0) = ull;
__asm__ __volatile__ ( : +r (__r0
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: gilles dot chanteperdrix at xenomai dot org
GCC target triplet: armeb-unknown-linux-gnueabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
13 matches
Mail list logo
