Regarding the first question, there will be binary compatibility issue if g++
and open64 generated binaries are mixed and matched.
Regarding the second part, we can support a new flag with the fast STL as a
default for an upcoming release. Is that going to gate this checkin ?
-tx
Dibyendu
---
2011/6/1 Das, Dibyendu :
> Regarding the first question, there will be binary compatibility issue if g++
> and open64 generated binaries are mixed and matched.
>
> Regarding the second part, we can support a new flag with the fast STL as a
> default for an upcoming release. Is that going to gate
Hi all,
Can gatekeeper help review this fix?
Bug description: https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=704
The fix is to add some intrinsic support for IA64.
Thanks
zhuqing
bug704.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Simpl
I don't know who the STL gatekeeper is. It seemed to be better if this
is submitted to STL community? If there is no suggestion within a
couple of days, I might forward? Shin, any suggestion?
For what it's worth, the open64 compiler's base (i.e. SGI compiler)
used to have a lot of input improving S
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Sun Chan wrote:
> I don't know who the STL gatekeeper is. It seemed to be better if this
> is submitted to STL community? If there is no suggestion within a
> couple of days, I might forward? Shin, any suggestion?
> For what it's worth, the open64 compiler's base (i
Hi Mei,
See the attached updated and re-tested patch.
For comment 1: Removed redundant WN_MAP_Set.
For comment 2: Removed redundant initialization as the original code took
advantage of these being initialized to NULL or FALSE according to C standard.
For comment 3: 'vec_unroll_preg_store' corre
Hi Pallavi
Please check it in.
-Mei
From: Mathew, Pallavi
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:45 AM
To: Ye, Mei; open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: Code review request for vectorizer bugfix patch
Hi Mei,
See the attached updated and re-tested patch.
For comment 1: Removed redundant
Author: pallavimathew
Date: 2011-06-01 14:06:08 -0400 (Wed, 01 Jun 2011)
New Revision: 3636
Modified:
trunk/osprey/be/lno/simd.cxx
Log:
Sample testcases that fail at -O3:
#include
int a[1000], b[1000], c[1000];
void init (void) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
a[i] = 1;
Hi,
Although I'm not a gatekeeper in CG, I looked at the patch.
One minor comments: In barcelona_si.cxx, there is redundant definition:
@@ -143,6 +149,10 @@
TOP_or16,
TOP_or32,
TOP_or64,
+ TOP_ori8,
+ TOP_ori16,
+ TOP_ori8,
+ TOP_ori16,
As you said, there are a lot of duplicate information amon
Hi Min,
Thanks for your help. I'll clean up the duplicates that you point out.
Unless there is an objection from another gatekeeper, I will take your
review as approval to check in.
-David Coakley / AMD Open Source Compiler Engineering
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Min Zhao wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi Doug,
I believe this option is actually working as expected. Maybe it needs to be
better documented. The code (config_ipa.cxx) says this option is supposed
to specify the percentage change of the max. output file size, so with this in
mind, you can indeed change the output file size as desi
Hi Sun,
I don't know who the official GNU STL gatekeeper is. I think Matt might
now.
Hi Dibyendu,
I suggest to send Matt, whom I have added to the distribution list, the
patch for his thoughts on this change?
Hi Matt,
Would you comment on the patch? I would love to hear your insight.
Shin
Hi Sun/Shin-
I will await feedback on this.
-thx
dibyendu
From: Shin-Ming Liu [mailto:shinm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:45 AM
To: Sun Chan; Matt Austern
Cc: Das, Dibyendu; Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Code Review Request for changes in STL tree
Thanks Gautam!
I missed the comment, and the code works as advertised.
Anyway, at least more folks now know about an option that is useful from time
to time.
Doug
From: Gautam Chakrabarti [mailto:gautam.c...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 5:06 PM
To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.n
Matt,
Would you mind review the changes while you are at it?
Thx!
Sun
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Matt Austern wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Shin-Ming Liu wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sun,le
>>
>> I don't know who the official GNU STL gatekeeper is. I think Matt might
>> now.
>
> Nope, n
Would gatekeepr help reveiew this patch?
Currently, nystrom alias analyzer analyze again for OpenMP lower created
parallel PU.
And when OpenMP lower create this parallel PU, it doesn't copy aliasTagMap.
This problem is when creating constraint graph for OpenMP parallel PU.
Compilation has sig fau
I'm not the gate keeper for GCC FE but this patch looks fine to me.
2011/6/1 Mathew, Pallavi
> I have not received any comments so far. Can a gatekeeper please the
> review this patch?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Pallavi
>
>
>
> *From:* Mathew, Pallavi
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:57 PM
> *To:*
17 matches
Mail list logo
