iny. ]
Regards,
Phil
Can I test your script in my embedded system?
Can you send to me?
Michael
does a sign-extention.
Which mov instruction?
Ciao,
Michael.
n were intended
to provide a guarantee or warranty, or if there was any expectation
that there was any assumption of liability for GCC's failure to
perform as indicated.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Hello,
I am trying to get gcc to optimize an inner math loop. The first part
of the loop computes a single precision float expression (which may or
may not be NAN), and the second part sums all of these results into a
double precision total:
Conceptually, the code is:
double sum = 0;
for(i=0;
Michael James wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to get gcc to optimize an inner math loop. The first part
of the loop computes a single precision float expression (which may or
may not be NAN), and the second part sums all of these results into a
double precision total:
Conceptually, the code is
for(i=i0; i,
. I get the same results either way.
Again, help is appreciated. -- Thanks.
Regards,
Michael James
Hello,
I have been playing with gcc's new (to me) auto vectorization
optimizations. I have a particular loop for which I have made external
provisions to ensure that the data is 16-byte aligned. I have tried
everything I can think of to give gcc the hint that it is operating on
aligned data, but
arrays are passed as pointer-to-struct with the array
element in the struct specified with an alignment attribute. I have
not tested method 2; it seems like a transformation which may work
despite being unaesthetic.
Regards,
Michael James
On 11/5/06, Dorit Nuzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ewlib/2006/msg00181.html).
There are references to malloc in eh_alloc.c and
unwind-dw2-fde.c. It looks like these are being
included even when there are no exception handlers.
Any suggestions on how to eliminate the references
to these routines?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd.,
cture. Intel & AMD
have announced that they are developing large multi-core symmetric processors.
The timelines I've seen say that the number of cores on each chip will
double every year or two. Moore's law hasn't stopped. The number of
gates per chip doubles every 18 months.
--
nt, but each is independent of each other.
Separate threads could process the tree/RTL for each function
independently, with the results merged on completion. This
may interact adversely with some global optimizations, such
as inlining.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo
system, the overhead is distributed across all processors, but
results in a net gain. For parallelizations pprograms, a
4-way processor might achieve 3X performance improvement.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
minimal program "int main() { return 0; }". GCC 3.4.1
generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
reference to
? One of the C++ percepts is that there
is no overhead for features which are not used.
Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
stack unwinding.
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would be in the routine which
x27;t need unwinding
shouldn't have a superfluous reference to it.
There is a check in doing_eh() in except.c which checks that
-fexceptions is set if any exception-specific functions are
used. It seems that this would be the place to generate the
reference to __gxx_personality_v0.
--
Michael
better to do
work in parallel that is likely to be needed but possibly may
turn out to be unnecessary than wait until it's known for
sure that it is needed.
Ok maybe its just me.
Well, maybe. ;-)
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would be in the routine which causes the stack
unwinding, not in every C++ object file, whether needed
or not.
Doesn't that otherwise
) What is the correct way to set the reset vector?
Use a linker script to load a jump to the start routine in the reset vector.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
t;floatdidf2"
[(set (match_operand:DF 0 "gpc_reg_operand" "=f")
(float:DF (match_operand:DI 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "*f")))]
"TARGET_POWERPC64 && TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && TARGET_FPRS"
"fcfid %0,%1"
[(set_attr &qu
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
if I define this type:
typedef unsigned char UCHAR __attribute__((aligned(32)));
void func(void) {
char example;
UCHAR vector[40];
...
}
The vector array is 4 byte alignment in any case?
Regards Michael
--- End Message ---
find the correct
one for your particular application, you will find that there
are an infinite number of configurations.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
contribute to the project.
You can feel sad all you want, but being patronizing is
not going to get much sympathy.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Ulf Magnusson wrote:
On 11/29/06, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> While searching for an answer, I noticed that lots of people seem
> to have had problems with cross-compilation that to me look more
> like problems in the documentation, which I
> -Original Message-
> From: H. J. Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:09 PM
> To: Menezes, Evandro
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; rajagopal, dwarak; Meissner,
> Michael
> Subject: Re: Serious SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regres
to use %rbp as frame pointer and not as general register. In that case
the zeroing of %rbp would be a usable stop condition for functions without
unwind info. But that's already outside the ABI.
Ciao,
Michael.
in that frame
pointer could indicate the outermost frame (_if_ the suggestion in the ABI
is adhered to, which noone is required to).
Ciao,
Michael.
ou
> > can't put a zero in there.
>
> Again, this is just because the "authors" of the ABI didn't think.
[Blaeh, Ulrich talk] No, I think it's because the "readers" of the ABI
can't read.
Ciao,
Michael.
B_MATCHES
option and don't mention using '?'.)
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Michael Eager wrote:
I'm having some trouble understanding how to write
a MULTILIB_MATCHES specification.
I need to treat a simple option like "-mhard-float" the
same as an option with a value "-mfp=hard". Here's what
I came up with:
MULTILIB_OPTIONS = mfp=ha
The operand of the shift operator is of type unsigned int.
"x <<= c" is exactly the same as "((int)x) << c"
It doesn't matter whether the promotion is explicit or implicit, the
semantics
are the same.
According to C99, the operand of the shift operator should be "integer
type", which include
sked, and was told that they assume (unsigned)
modulo arithmetics for signed integers!
I am not sure (this was two years ago), but I think that this was
so even for the Microsoft's (named BLAST back then) formal
verification tool (used for driver verification).
Michael
ne make_a_bar() (struct bar*)make_a_uint(sizeof(struct bar))
foo->bar=make_a_bar();
foo->bar->none = value;
Since gcc should know that foo->bar of type "struct bar" has been
updated before "value" gets written to "none" which is a field on object
of type "struct bar".
Michael
his bug should be handed to all those who would like
to expand the meaning of "undefined". They should try to debug it, and
then say if they would still want to add more "undefined" clauses to the
standard. The new gcc warnings could have helped me in this case.
Michael
; i>= 0 ; ++i) {.}
The compiler will not be allowed to eliminate the "i>=0" check since
i<=x might return true when "i<=x && i>=0" would return false.
This wording also allows
for (i=0 ; i<=x ; ++i) {}
to be optimized to
i=x+1
since is ok to assume that i<=x returns *false* for i=MAX_INT+1.
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
s the upper limit of the loop upfront.
Anyway, the main point of the complete mail was to propose semantics
that is
strong enough for the "speed is all" camp, and predictable enough for the
"real world code assumes wrapping" camp.
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
problems from using the same names for things that take
different formatted inputs, so I will likely make using BID functions
use different names. This will also allow us to generate testing
compilers that use that alternate format.
5) Hopefully the Intel library will use the same names as the BI
> -Original Message-
> I would like to say the one thing I have not heard through this
> discussion is the real reason why the C standards comittee decided
> signed overflow as being undefined. All I can think of is they were
> thinking of target that do saturation for plus/minus but wrapp
n div_res, and mod_res=1. Then return to the following instruction.
Should I open a request for the kernel?
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:34:23PM +0200, Michael Veksler wrote:
Once the kernel sees the FP trap (whatever its i368 name is),
it decodes the machine code and finds:
idivl (%ecx).
As far as I remember, this will put the result in two registers
one for div_res and one
ate change? If so, where?
The PPC EABI says that arrays are aligned on the boundary
of the type, which suggests that this was a bug fix. But
unaligned char arrays make strcpy much slower.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 20:04 -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
But unaligned char arrays make strcpy much slower.
Actually it depends on the processor unless you are messed up by using
-mstrict-align which is a huge hammer for most (if not all) PowerPC
processors even though the
Another problem is -ftrapv. You wouldn't want to kill traps on
INT_MIN/-1
with -ftrapv, would you?
GCC should be modified such that libc/kernel can distinguish
INT_MIN/-1 from INT_MIN%-1.
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
data types, use a union:
union {
long l;
char c[4];
} a;
a.l = 0x12345678;
a.c[0] = 0x01;
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
set? Probably generate a different code
sequence in the compiler.)
Simply let the kernel/libc set the overflow flag in this case, and let
the compiler
append an INTO instruction right after the idivl.
We do want to generate a trap for x / 0, of course.
Ian
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
x)
(I hope got the order right and the first prefix is redundant.)
(2)
The second option is to mark it in the executable in a different ELF
section, like debug info or like C++ exception handling.
This solution will make it workable only with the libc rather
than the kernel modi
cult to make it
scientific (e.g. how to have a reliable measure of quality of testing).
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz10:12, przez Michael Veksler:
Andrew, you are both correct and incorrect. Certainly, deterministic
unit testing
is not very useful. However, random unit testing is priceless. I have
been doing
pseudo-random unit tests for years
mentation. Any change involves a massive flag day.
> (Of course, users strongly concerned about portability should indicate
> explicitly whether each char is signed or not. In this way, they write
> programs which have the same meaning in both C dialects.)
>
>
--
Michael Meissner
AMD, MS 83-29
90 Central Street
Boxborough, MA 01719
E 1
> #else
> #define VARYING_SIZE /*empty*/
> #endif
Probably reasonable.
>
>
> Is there some point that I forgot? Probably yes, since my suggestion
> is quite obvious but not yet in GCC?
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> --
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://
> -Original Message-
> From: Gabriel Paubert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:43 AM
> To: Paolo Bonzini
> Cc: Meissner, Michael; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] char should be signed by default
>
> On Thu, Ja
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:54 PM
> To: Meissner, Michael
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: RE: char should be signed by default
>
> > - Original Message -
> >
Hi, Patrice,
I don't know about inserting call at the basic block level, but I am
quite sure inserting calls at the function level could be done by
aspect-oriented-programming (AOP).
For example, we used our project, AspectC compiler (www.aspectc.net), to
weave in following aspect into gcc,
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Gong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "GERIN Patrice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jan Hubicka"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, February 1
submit proposals by using
the form on the website. If you are interested in being an active
participant on the DWARF Standard Committee, please contact me
directly.
--
Michael Eager, Chair, DWARF Standard Committee
, emacs will enforce this policy for
all such files. The beauty of this is that different files may enforce
different policies. This allows consistency in old files without
re-indenting them, it allows different policies for different sub-projects.
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il
ore about to use gdb for embedded development with very poor
uControllers?
Try "info gdb" as a start.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Hi all
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available & working
in the gcc compiler?
2) Will their garbage collection & accelerated message dispatch mechanisms
also be supported?
Thx & please feel free
Hi,
We are pleased to announce the release of AspeCt-oriented C (ACC) V
0.5, formerly known as AspectC.
Besides some new features, the ACC 0.5 release also includes a set of
experimental weave adapters that
help integrate aspeCts in the build process of large C-based software
projects.
For m
I put the dicussion about compiler books in a WIKI page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ListOfCompilerBooks since I feel it is of common
interest.
Please feel free to correct any mistakes and ad more comments or books.
Michael Cieslinski
umber of machine variants that are supported, it is likely the only solution
is to raise the amount of virtual memory you have on the system.
--
Michael Meissner, AMD
90 Central Street, MS 83-29,
Boxborough, MA 01719
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:27:32PM -0700, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
> I can't duplicate the problem. It works fine for me.
>
> H.J.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Martin Michlmayr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Saturday, March 24,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 07:01:40PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> The following change broke --disable-multilib:
>
> 2007-03-23 Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ../src/configure --enable-languages=c --dis
ial preprocessing token or a
partial comment...
If there is no trailing (logical) newline, then the file would end in a partial
preprocessing token.
> (I knew the acronym "RMS" as "Record Management Services" before I ever
> heard of a certain person who started a certain compiler).
>
>
--
Michael Meissner, AMD
90 Central Street, MS 83-29, Boxborough, MA, 01719, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
assign copyright to FSF. I am
doing this with my student hat (need it for accurate profiling of my
research code), but my IBM researcher hat may (or may not) interfere,
and I'll need advice from our legal department.
Thanks
Michael
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mvek
tures that are more difficult to implement
if the PC is used instead of a string.
Thanks
Michael
--
Michael Veksler
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Joe Buck
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:02 PM
> To: Andrew Pinski
> Cc: Florian Weimer; Steven Bosscher; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Building mainline and 4.2 on Debian/amd64
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 20
> -Original Message-
> From: FX Coudert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:01 PM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Meissner, Michael; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Bootstrap is broken on i[345]86-linux
>
> Bootstrap has been broken since 2007
Presently, under OS X, GCC requires explicit definitions for static
template data members. That is,
template
struct foo
{
static int x;
};
template
int foo::x;
causes problems at link time. An explicit definition of the x member
m
east fix bugs
during the runtime lib building, when I see them.
Ciao,
Michael.
d._ZTV15ACE_Sig_Adapter[vtable for ACE_Sig_Adapter]' of
.shobj/POSIX_Proactor.o
/usr/bin/ld: BFD 2.15.91.0.2 20040727 internal error, aborting at
../../bfd/elf64-x86-64.c line 1873 in elf64_x86_64_relocate_section
/usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug.
Is this behavior to be expected or should I report a bug?
Michael Cieslinski
rning to 3.4, without me seeing that we were doing the
right thing as Richard claimed, but that seemed to have falled through the
crack.
> Do you have a testcase, and/or can point out the code that introduces
> the inconsistency in the rtl?
Ciao,
Michael.
I formatted the infomation from Giovanni Bajo's patch and put it in the
Wiki: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase
Michael Cieslinski
s locally with the below patch for the toplevel
configure.
Ciao,
Michael.
--
Index: configure
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/configure,v
retrieving revision 1.206
diff -u -p -r1.206 configure
--- configure 28 Feb 2005 13:24:57 -
27;const' directory instead of the 4.1.0 one. If yes,
then this is the problem, and Zacks latest patches fixes it.
Ciao,
Michael.
Does that option do anything except supply -maltivec implicitly?
galloc-branch.
Ciao,
Michael.
x27;\0') at
> ../../gcc-4.0.0-20050410/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:1742
So PRE is trying to compare two types, and they contains something which
can't be handled. Either because they were silently overwritten, or
because of a logical error.
Ciao,
Michael.
For those of you who I've worked with in the past on various GCC issues, I have
returned back to GCC land after a long sojourn in other compilation systems. I
will start work at AMD on Monday, April 18th, 2005, but I suspect it will be
some time before I'm back up to speed.
--
Michae
xed seems not
unreasonable to me. I realize that is extreme, but I still think it makes
sense. Certainly I feel that the planned two months until 4.0.1 are much
too long for the number of critical bugs 4.0.0 had.
Ciao,
Michael.
#x27;t want defects in 3.x compilers to prevent backporting of
bugfixes from 4.1 to 4.0, if possible.
Ciao,
Michael.
hat they
> want, even in parallel to possibly fixing the compiler.
Yep. /us fighting in many places ;-)
Ciao,
Michael.
Consider the following short program:
#include
void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
{
for (int x=0; x
t; a+n) { // arrays don't overlap
int * restrict ar = a;
int * restrict br = b;
/* Make this nonaliasing known to the compiler */
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) ar[i] += br[i];
} else {
/* They overlap, can't optimize as much */
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) a[i] += b[i];
}
}
Ciao,
Michael.
d hack it to give you what you
need. This may cut your times by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Of course, this will not help someone in Bangladesh with a Pentium.
Michael
If you are
going to tackle it, be sure to have your paperwork in place so that your code
changes can be used.
--
Michael Meissner
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.the-meissners.org
Haren Visavadia wrote on 29/05/2005 10:51:00:
>
> You can search Bugzilla as well, so you do not fill in
> duplicate bug report.
Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several
duplicates, *after* searching Bugzilla.
1. There are too many ways to phrase a title, and to
means it's useful!), bug 323 should have been
dealt with years ago.
I know that before bug 323 is handled, I will not file FP bug reports,
because I'll assume that it will be probably marked as a duplicate
of 323 anyway. Luckily, I am able to avoid FP most of the time
(at the cost of uglifying and slowing down parts of my code).
I don't know how many people are like me, but I guess that I am
not alone.
Michael
Giovanni Bajo wrote on 29/05/2005 13:50:59:
> Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [2] GCC could implement a better error message.
>
> This is a bug, too. You can file a PR in Bugzilla explictly asking for a
more
> informative error message.
>
PR 21808
Michael
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2005 06:41:54:
> On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Nontrivial search of GCC Bugzilla are, sometimes,
> > >extre
Paul Schlie wrote on 08/06/2005 17:53:04:
>
> - I would have if someone could provide a concrete example of an
undefined
> behavior which produces a reliably useful/predictable result.
>
Well this is a simple hackery quiz, which is irrelevant to GCC.
1: int a, b;
2: int f()
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/06/2005 21:16:46:
> > From: Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Paul Schlie wrote on 08/06/2005 17:53:04:
> >> - I would have if someone could provide a concrete example of an
> >> undefi
would be the feeling having such kind of stuff in
GCC's CVS?
Basically I'm looking for some consensus how to make my above goal happen.
So anyone any suggestions, ideas, flames?
Ciao,
Michael.
Finally, for the x86/x86_64, there are a lot of instructions that need to be
handled, and it is an ongoing maintenance problem in that you now need to
modify GCC as well as binutils to add new instructions.
--
Michael Meissner
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/06/2005 18:33:55:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 2005-06-19 15:47:58 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > If you think it is an invalid bug, then it effectively is a complete
> | > non-sense that you continue making noise on this list abo
[Gaby wants Vincent to explain:]
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
# This is complete non-sense. One doesn't prepare a patch for an invalid
# bug.
[Michael tries to interpret Vincent:]
| I think that what Vincent meant was:
| "One doesn't prepare a patch for a
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/06/2005 11:13:35:
> On Jun 20, 2005 09:51 AM, Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Despite being descriptive and friendly, bug masters
> > frustrate me and other users by being too eager
> > to cl
to be very careful to
define a consistent semantics for each case.
Michael
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/06/2005 14:03:53:
> > From: Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> > Almost any optimization over line 8 will change the
> > behavior of line 4. I believe that you did not intend to
> > cover this case in your r
1 - 100 of 1316 matches
Mail list logo
