On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Typicall
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 15:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:00AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Well we also patch config.in and configure.ac/configure. If those are
> > acceptable to be patched later too, then great. If not, the patch
>
> That is the same thing as c
I'd like to get a small patch to tree reassociation (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01761.html ) in.
Thanks,
Easwaran
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th.
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
> deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Typically a major version bump is reserved for eit
On 2012-11-05 16:17 , Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>> Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
>> reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
>> single digits!
>
> (see ht
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
> reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
> single digits!
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01103.html)
I suppose
On 11/05/2012 03:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
"incorrectly" or "I have fixed problems that we have just decided
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
> behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
> "incorrectly" or "I have fixed problems that we have just decided to live
> with".
As far as I know, the TREE
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:32:48PM -0800, Handong Ye wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
>> >> Hi, all
>> >>
>
> ...
>
>> >>
>> >> But when I
On 11/05/2012 01:08 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess th
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
> legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess the first question is fairly
obvious so you are
i have been trying to change the representation of INT_CSTs so that they
do not carry around the limitation that they can only represent numbers
as large as 2 host_wide_ints (HWI). I have chosen a variable length
implementation that uses an array of HWIs that is just large enough to
hold the s
I am getting a bunch of failed GCC tests with precompiled headers and was
wondering if anyone can help me figure out where to look for the problem.
If I run a test by hand by creating common-1.h.gch from common-1.h, then
remove common-1.h and compile common-1.c (which includes common-1.h), it
fai
On 11/05/2012 06:11 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
>> Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>>
>> Depends on why it schedules them i
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
> Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an
> output depen
> -Original Message-
> From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.renne...@embecosm.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2012 16:32
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
>
> > This cannot happen, but I am unsure about which hook can be used to
> > te
Jakub and Richi,
At this point I have decided to that i am not going to get the rest of
the wide-int patches into a stable enough form for this round. The
combination of still living without power at my house and some issues
that i hit with the front ends has made it impossible to get this
fi
On 11/05/2012 03:51 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler is
> issuing two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same register. It
> ends up looking like this:
> Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 <- r2 and 0xf8
> Cond_exec p0 != 0:
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:13 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> > on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> > like to see i
Quoting Paulo Matos :
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler
is issuing two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same
register. It ends up looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 <- r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 <- 0x10
This cannot ha
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler is issuing
two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same register. It ends up
looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 <- r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 <- 0x10
This cannot happen, but I am unsure about wh
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:00AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Well we also patch config.in and configure.ac/configure. If those are
> acceptable to be patched later too, then great. If not, the patch
That is the same thing as config.gcc bits.
> isn't really very large. We did do this for po
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:53 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:41:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > I'd like to post later today (hopefully this morning) a very minimal
> > configure patch that adds the -mcpu=power8 and -mtune=power8 compiler
> > options to gcc. Currently,
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
there is code from the rtl level that was written twice, once for the
case when the size of the
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:32:48PM -0800, Handong Ye wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
> >> Hi, all
> >>
...
> >>
> >> But when I do the test for a case with a little change, it is failed to
> >> g
On 11/05/2012 02:09 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I sent this to the wrong list originally, apologies to those who get
it twice.
Actually, you originally sent it to the *right* list.
Paolo.
I think this thread belongs on the gcc-help list, not here.
I sent this to the wrong list originally, apologies to those who get it
twice.
There is a request to be able to turn off interpretation of several
suffixes for gcc extension numeric literals to make way for C++-1Y or
various std libraries to claim several suffixes currently used for gnu
exten
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:41:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> > on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> > like to see in GCC 4.8, please p
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
> posted before
On 05/11/2012 11:33, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars
wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI has always passed argu
On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI has always passed arguments in registers. There is no
option to
33 matches
Mail list logo
