On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
Richard,
I spent a good part of the afternoon talking to Mike about this. He is on
the c++ standards committee and is a much more seasoned c++ programmer than
I am.
He convinced me that with a large amount of
i will discuss this with mike when he wakes up.he lives on the west
pole so that will not be until after you go to bed.
the one point that i will take exception to is that the copying
operation is, in practice, any more time expensive than the pointer
copy. I never bother to initialize
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
I would like you to respond to
On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard
Richard,
I spent a good part of the afternoon talking to Mike about this. He is
on the c++ standards committee and is a much more seasoned c++
programmer than I am.
He convinced me that with a large amount of engineering and c++
foolishness that it was indeed possible to get your proposal
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 the
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 post
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com 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
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 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
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:13 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com 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
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
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 ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday,
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
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com 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
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
Documented via the patch below. I also changed Active Development
to Development to reduce text density and improve formatting on a
wider range of window/text sizes.
Gerald
Index: index.html
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jakub,
My -fopt-info pass filtering patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02704.html) is being
reviewed and I hope to get this in by Nov. 5 for inclusion in gcc
4.8.0.
I just committed -fopt-info pass
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:52:04AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jakub,
My -fopt-info pass filtering patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02704.html) is being
reviewed and I hope to get this in by
richi,
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 mode is less than the size of a HWI and once
for the case where the size of the mode is less that 2 HWIs.
my patch
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
How was that change tested? I'm seeing thousands of new UNRESOLVED
failures, of the form:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com 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 mode is less than the size of a HWI and once
for the case where the size of
On 11/01/2012 09:10 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com 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 mode is less than the size of
anyway richard, it does not answer the question as to what you are going
to do with a typedef foo2.
the point of all of this work by me was to leave no traces of the host
in the way the compiler works.
instantiating a specific size of the double-ints is not going to get you
there.
kenny
On
I am really sorry about that. I am looking and will fix the breakage
or revert the patch shortly.
Thanks,
Sharad
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:52:04AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Sharad Singhai
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
As is probably obvious, I don't agree FWIW. It seems like an unnecessary
complication without any clear use. Especially since the number of
significant HWIs in a wide_int isn't always going to be the same for
both operands to a binary
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
I found the problem and the following patch fixes it. The issue with
my testing was that I was only looking at 'FAIL' lines but forgot to
tally the 'UNRESOLVED' test cases, the real symptoms of my test
problems. In any
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
I found the problem and the following patch fixes it. The issue with
my testing was that I was only looking at 'FAIL' lines but forgot to
tally the
Hi Jakub,
I would like to get the fission implementation in before stage 1. It
has been under review for some time, and is awaiting another round of
review now.
More info here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02684.html
Sterling
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org]
On
Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:57 AM
To: g...@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
jakub,
i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
badly. my house is hooked up to a small generator, and no
Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
jakub,
i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
badly.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
jakub,
i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com 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.
Reminds me of
On 10/30/2012 01:56, 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 the freeze, but
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:25:45PM +0800, JonY wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:56, 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 post them for review soon.
On 31 October 2012 10:25, JonY wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:56, 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.
On 31 October 2012 11:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31 October 2012 10:25, JonY wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:56, 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
On 10/31/2012 19:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31 October 2012 11:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31 October 2012 10:25, JonY wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:56, 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
On 10/31/2012 19:23, JonY wrote:
Why is the define commented out by the patch, not simply removed?
If it's not needed then it's not needed. We have subversion to track
change history, we don't need to leave dead code lying around with
comments explaining why it's dead.
OK, I will remove
Applied.
Thanks,
Paolo.
On 31 October 2012 11:23, JonY wrote:
On 10/31/2012 19:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
It looks like the workaround is in mingw not in GCC, so is it a
problem that it won't be possible to use GCC 4.8 with existing mingw
versions, or are users required to use a brand new mingw to use a new
GCC?
On 10/31/2012 20:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31 October 2012 11:23, JonY wrote:
On 10/31/2012 19:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
It looks like the workaround is in mingw not in GCC, so is it a
problem that it won't be possible to use GCC 4.8 with existing mingw
versions, or are users required
Richi,
Let me explain to you what a broken api is. I have spent the last week
screwing around with tree-vpn and as of last night i finally got it to
work. In tree-vpn, it is clear that double-int is the precise
definition of a broken api.
The tree-vpn uses an infinite-precision view of
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:44:50AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The tree-vpn uses an infinite-precision view of arithmetic. However,
that infinite precision is implemented on top of a finite, CARVED IN
STONE, base that is and will always be without a patch like this,
128 bits on an x86-64.
jakub
my port has 256 bit integers. They are done by strapping together all
of the elements of a vector unit.
if one looks at where intel is going, they are doing exactly the same
thing.The difference is that they like to add the operations one at
a time rather than just do a clean
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
if one looks at where intel is going, they are doing exactly the
same thing.The difference is that they like to add the
operations one at a time rather than just do a clean implementation
like we did. Soon they will get
I was not planning to do that mangling for 4.8.My primary
justification for getting it in publicly now is that there are a large
number of places where the current compiler (both at the tree and rtl
levels) do not do optimization of the value is larger than a single
hwi.My code
On 10/31/2012 09:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
jakub,
i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov 5.
I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her pretty
badly. my
Jakub,
it is hard from all of the threads to actually distill what the real
issues are here. So let me start from a clean slate and state them simply.
Richi has three primary objections:
1) that we can do all of this with a templated version of double-int.
2) that we should not be passing
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Richi,
Let me explain to you what a broken api is. I have spent the last week
screwing around with tree-vpn and as of last night i finally got it to work.
In tree-vpn, it is clear that double-int is the precise definition of a
broken api.
The
Hi Jakub,
We are working on the following.
1. bdver3 enablement. Review completed. Changes to be incorporated and
checked-in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01131.html
2. btver2 basic enablement is done
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01018.html)/
Scheduler
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:07:55PM -0400, David Miller 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 post them for review soon. Patches
posted before the freeze,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com 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
jakub,
i am hoping to get the rest of my wide integer conversion posted by nov
5. I am under some adverse conditions here: hurricane sandy hit her
pretty badly. my house is hooked up to a small generator, and no one
has any power for miles around.
So far richi has promised to review
On 10/30/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com 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
Hi Jakub,
My function multiversioning patch is being reviewed and I hope to
get this in by Nov. 5.
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If
Hi Jakub,
My -fopt-info pass filtering patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02704.html) is being
reviewed and I hope to get this in by Nov. 5 for inclusion in gcc
4.8.0.
Thanks,
Sharad
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Status
==
I'd
From: Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:56:42 +0100
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 the
I'd like to get the Sparc cbcond stuff in (3 revisions posted) which
is waiting for Eric B. to do some Solaris specific work.
I'd also like to enable LRA for at least 32-bit sparc, even if I can't
find the time to work on auditing 64-bit completely.
End of stage #1 isn't a hard limit for
From: Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:25:15 +0100
I'd like to get the Sparc cbcond stuff in (3 revisions posted) which
is waiting for Eric B. to do some Solaris specific work.
I'd also like to enable LRA for at least 32-bit sparc, even if I can't
find the time
måndag 29 oktober 2012 18.56.42 skrev Jakub Jelinek:
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 the
62 matches
Mail list logo
