2013/10/24 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 10/23/13 04:57, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2013-10-23 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
* mode-classes.def (MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS): New.
* tree.def (POINTER_BOUNDS_TYPE): New.
* genmodes.c (complete_mode): Support
On 01 Oct 20:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
is approved and committed first.
Thanks,
Uros.
Thanks for review!
Attached is a version to be committed. The only difference from the previous
one is BOUND_MODE renamed to
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
On 01 Oct 20:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
is approved and committed first.
Thanks,
Uros.
Thanks for review!
Attached is a version to be
2013/10/24 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
On 01 Oct 20:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
is approved and committed first.
Thanks,
Uros.
Thanks for
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
This is OK for mainline, on the condition that target independent part
is approved and committed first.
Thanks,
Uros.
Thanks for review!
Attached is a version to be committed. The only difference from the
eOn 22 Oct 22:55, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/17/13 02:18, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of
MPX ISA support patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. Is it OK for
On 10/23/13 04:57, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2013-10-23 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
* mode-classes.def (MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS): New.
* tree.def (POINTER_BOUNDS_TYPE): New.
* genmodes.c (complete_mode): Support MODE_POINTER_BOUNDS.
(POINTER_BOUNDS_MODE):
2013/10/21 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 10/15/13 07:31, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hey guys,
could please someone look at this small patch? It blocks approved MPX
ISA support on i386 target.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi b/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
index 1d62223..02b1214 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
On 10/21/2013 11:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
So why are bounds distinct modes?Is there some inherent reason why bounds
are something other than an integer mode (MODE_INT)?
I suggested the distinct modes during the NDA phase.
The primary reason for this is that MPX is designed to be kind of
On 10/22/13 13:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/21/2013 11:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
So why are bounds distinct modes?Is there some inherent reason why bounds
are something other than an integer mode (MODE_INT)?
I suggested the distinct modes during the NDA phase.
The primary reason for
On 10/22/2013 12:18 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
The only way I could think to positively ensure that normal operations
didn't get implemented via mpx insns is to describe the new patterns
with distinct modes.
Presumably once we have a distinct mode, we do the right magic in
HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK and
On 10/22/13 13:31, Richard Henderson wrote:
Yes, which is where I believe the new types come from as well.
OK. Thanks for clarifying. I'm about to go offline for a few hours,
but will start working my way through the MPX stuff.
jeff
On 09/17/13 02:18, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of MPX
ISA support patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
On 10/15/13 07:31, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hey guys,
could please someone look at this small patch? It blocks approved MPX
ISA support on i386 target.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi b/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
index 1d62223..02b1214 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/rtl.texi
@@ -1382,6
Hey guys,
could please someone look at this small patch? It blocks approved MPX
ISA support on i386 target.
Thanks,
Ilya
2013/10/2 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Ping
2013/9/17 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Hi,
Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is
Ping
2013/9/17 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Hi,
Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of MPX
ISA support patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
On 26 Sep 23:12, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
please first get target-independent changes reviewed and committed.
Do you mean I should move
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
please first get target-independent changes reviewed and committed.
Do you mean I should move bound type and mode declaration into a
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
please first get target-independent changes reviewed and committed.
Do you mean I should move bound type and mode declaration into a
Hi,
Here is a patch introducing new type and mode for bounds. It is a part of MPX
ISA support patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01094.html).
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2013-09-16 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
On 16 Sep 11:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/9/11 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com:
Hi Uros,
Thanks a lot for the review!
The x86 part looks mostly OK (I have a couple of comments bellow), but
please first
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you check the above with x32, where Pmode != word_mode on x86_64?
The inner UNSPEC will be generated in SImode, but the matching pattern
+(define_insn *mode_mk
+ [(set (match_operand:BND 0 register_operand =B)
+
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
2013/9/11 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
wrote:
Ping^4
Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
specific and is basic
2013/9/11 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Ping^4
Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
Thanks,
Ilya
2013/9/2 Ilya Enkovich
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Did you check the above with x32, where Pmode != word_mode on x86_64?
The inner UNSPEC will be generated in SImode, but the matching pattern
+(define_insn *mode_mk
+ [(set (match_operand:BND 0 register_operand =B)
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Ping^4
Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
Thanks,
Ilya
2013/9/2 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Ping^3
Attached is the
Ping^4
Could please someone look at this patch? It is mostly i386 target
specific and is basic for further MPX based features.
Thanks,
Ilya
2013/9/2 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Ping^3
Attached is the same patch but against the current trunk.
2013/8/26 Ilya Enkovich
Ping
2013/8/19 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Ping
2013/8/12 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
2013/8/10 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is updated version of the patch. I removed redundant
mode_for_bound, added
Ping
2013/8/12 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
2013/8/10 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is updated version of the patch. I removed redundant
mode_for_bound, added comments to BOUND_TYPE and added -mmpx option.
I also fixed
2013/8/8 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
That is not a big issue to rename generic names. But I'm just still
trying to choose proper names. I looked into -fbounds-check but its
description already mention C/C++ and its semantics differs
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is updated version of the patch. I removed redundant
mode_for_bound, added comments to BOUND_TYPE and added -mmpx option.
I also fixed bndmk/bndldx/bndstx constraints to avoid incorrect
register allocation (created two new constraints for
2013/8/8 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi All,
I've updated MPX Wiki page
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
I added instrumentation description, programming model description,
differences with
2013/8/8 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
2013/8/8 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi All,
I've updated MPX Wiki page
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
I added instrumentation description,
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
That is not a big issue to rename generic names. But I'm just still
trying to choose proper names. I looked into -fbounds-check but its
description already mention C/C++ and its semantics differs from what
new instrumentation does. I consider using
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi All,
I've updated MPX Wiki page
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
I added instrumentation description, programming model description,
differences with other checkers, implementation details.
Thanks. As
Hi All,
I've updated MPX Wiki page
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler).
I added instrumentation description, programming model description,
differences with other checkers, implementation details.
What about the first patch? Should I post next patches in
2013/7/25 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Well, this patch does not introduce any changes on user-visible level.
It just adds MPX instructions support to i386 target. Usually each new
x86 instruction has corresponding builtin function and
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Usually also new instructions have a -m option to enable them, but you
don't have that here either. I realise the instructions are NOPs on
processors not supporting them (all processors not supporting them?), but
given that the availability of
2013/7/24 Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Here is a patch which adds support for new instructions from Intel
Memory Protection Extensions (MPX) ISA [1]
This patch introduces bound type, modes, registers and all MPX instructions.
Control
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Well, this patch does not introduce any changes on user-visible level.
It just adds MPX instructions support to i386 target. Usually each new
x86 instruction has corresponding builtin function and therefore is
provided with a testcase. But MPX
40 matches
Mail list logo
