On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 3:06 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 09:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 07:10, Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am working on the GSoC project, "C++: Implement compiler built-in
> > > traits for the sta
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 07:10, Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working on the GSoC project, "C++: Implement compiler built-in
> traits for the standard library traits". I found the following library
> traits that I am not sure if implementing built-in traits brings
> reasonable speed up.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 09:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 07:10, Ken Matsui via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working on the GSoC project, "C++: Implement compiler built-in
> > traits for the standard library traits". I found the following library
> > traits that I am
Hi,
I am working on the GSoC project, "C++: Implement compiler built-in
traits for the standard library traits". I found the following library
traits that I am not sure if implementing built-in traits brings
reasonable speed up.
* std::is_fundamental
* std::is_arithmetic
* std::is_scalar
* std::i
>On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Sebastiaan Peters
> wrote:
>>>On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Sebastiaan Peters
>>> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Sebastiaan Peters
wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Sebastiaan Peters
>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard Biener
>On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Sebastiaan Peters
> wrote:
>>>On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On March 19, 2018 8:09:32 PM GMT+01:00, Se
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Sebastiaan Peters
wrote:
>>On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On March 19, 2018 8:09:32 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastiaa
>On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>> > On March 19, 2018 8:09:32 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastiaan Peters >> > 7...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > The goal should
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On March 19, 2018 8:09:32 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastiaan Peters > > 7...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > The goal should be to
On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 14:02 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On March 19, 2018 8:09:32 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastiaan Peters > 7...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The goal should be to extend TU wise parallelism via make to
> > > > function
> > >
"milestone" of this project is to identify such issues and
document them somewhere.
Richard.
> Richard.
>
>>
>>From: Richard Biener
>>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 18:37
>>To: Sebastiaan Peters
>>Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
&
___
>From: Richard Biener
>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 18:37
>To: Sebastiaan Peters
>Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>Subject: Re: GSOC Question about the parallelization project
>
>On March 19, 2018 4:27:58 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastiaan Peters
> wrote:
>>Thank you fo
>The goal should be to extend TU wise parallelism via make to function wise
>parallelism within GCC.
Could you please elaborate more on this?
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 18:37
To: Sebastiaan Peters
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re
On March 19, 2018 4:27:58 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastiaan Peters
wrote:
>Thank you for your quick response.
>
>Does the GIMPLE optimization pipeline include only the Tree SSA passes
>or also the RTL passes?
Yes, it only includes only Tree SSA passes. The RTL part of the pipeline hasn't
been audited to
Thank you for your quick response.
Does the GIMPLE optimization pipeline include only the Tree SSA passes or also
the RTL passes?
Are the currently other parts of the compiler that have been parallelized?
Kind regards,
Sebastiaan Peters
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Sebastiaan Peters
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Sebastiaan Peters, currently an undergrad compsci student from The
> Netherlands.
>
> I'm interested in the project about parallelizing the compilation with
> threads project.
Thanks for your interest in this proj
Hello,
My name is Sebastiaan Peters, currently an undergrad compsci student from The
Netherlands.
I'm interested in the project about parallelizing the compilation with threads
project.
My main background is with c#, however I have some experience with c, c++ and
x86 assembly.
As for my kno
> Yes, you need to use .create() to initialize vec instances.
Thank you for the answer!
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Roman Gareev wrote:
> Dear gcc contributors,
>
> could you please answer a few questions about the implementation of
> vec.h? Should we always use “create” to initialize, for example,
> vec or is it possible to do it using “safe_grow_cleared”
> or a similar functio
Dear gcc contributors,
could you please answer a few questions about the implementation of
vec.h? Should we always use “create” to initialize, for example,
vec or is it possible to do it using “safe_grow_cleared”
or a similar function? There is "vec_safe_grow_cleared", which works
with vec. Is the
On 07/07/2014 13:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 7 July 2014 12:08, Tobias Grosser wrote:
The number of elements in these maps is most likely between 3-10.
Then std::map is the wrong solution.
The overhead of dereferencing all the pointers while walking through a
std::map will be higher than t
On 7 July 2014 12:08, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>
> The number of elements in these maps is most likely between 3-10.
Then std::map is the wrong solution.
The overhead of dereferencing all the pointers while walking through a
std::map will be higher than the savings you get from logarithmic
lookup.
On 05/07/2014 00:03, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:57:11AM +0200, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 04/07/2014 04:16, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:52:59PM +0200, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 03/07/2014 19:23, Roman Gareev wrote:
Dear gcc contributors,
could you pl
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:57:11AM +0200, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 04:16, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:52:59PM +0200, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> >>On 03/07/2014 19:23, Roman Gareev wrote:
> >>>Dear gcc contributors,
> >>>
> >>>could you please answer a few question
On 04/07/2014 04:16, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:52:59PM +0200, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 03/07/2014 19:23, Roman Gareev wrote:
Dear gcc contributors,
could you please answer a few questions about std::map? Does gcc have
a policy that forbids using of map in the source cod
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:52:59PM +0200, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 19:23, Roman Gareev wrote:
> >Dear gcc contributors,
> >
> >could you please answer a few questions about std::map? Does gcc have
> >a policy that forbids using of map in the source code of gcc? Can this
> >using create
On 03/07/2014 19:23, Roman Gareev wrote:
Dear gcc contributors,
could you please answer a few questions about std::map? Does gcc have
a policy that forbids using of map in the source code of gcc? Can this
using create a new installation dependency, which requires libstdc++?
I would be very grate
Dear gcc contributors,
could you please answer a few questions about std::map? Does gcc have
a policy that forbids using of map in the source code of gcc? Can this
using create a new installation dependency, which requires libstdc++?
I would be very grateful for your comments.
--
Thank you for the answer!
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 20:25 +0600, Roman Gareev wrote:
> Dear gcc contributors,
>
> could you please answer a few questions about unit tests? Is it
> possible to use them in gcc? Or maybe there is some analogue? I would
> be very grateful for your comments.
In GCC we have a DejaGnu based test sui
Dear gcc contributors,
could you please answer a few questions about unit tests? Is it
possible to use them in gcc? Or maybe there is some analogue? I would
be very grateful for your comments.
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev
Dear gcc contributors,
could you please advise how to better write the following testcase?
After the compilation with -O2 -fdump-tree-graphite-all
-fgraphite-identity -fgraphite-code-generator=isl the dump file should
contain the following text
ISL AST generated by ISL:
for (int c1 = 0; c1 < n -
Thanks Maxim,
There is a tentative plan to merge the concepts branch into trunk, and
that would probably be at the end of the summer or fall, so that might
fit nicely. It probably wouldn't hurt to have the students apply,
regardless of the final decisions. Writing proposals is good
experience.
I'
Hi all,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, but I had a question
regarding GSoC. I'm working on the C++ concepts branch (slowly), and
had some students express interest in contributing to its development
over the course of the summer. I was hoping I could act as a mentor or
co-mentor
35 matches
Mail list logo
