Re: Some Haifa scheduler bugs

Re: Some Haifa scheduler bugs

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <Pine.SOL.3.90.970819092828.291B-100000@starsky.informatik.rwth-aa
chen.de>you write:
  > 	* haifa-sched.c (target_bb, bbset_size, dom, prob, rgn_nr_edges,
  > 	rgn_edges, edgeset_size, edge_to_bit, pot_split, ancestor_edges):
  > 	Make static.
I've already got these installed into egcs, plus some others that
you didn't make static.

  > 	(move_insn): Call reemit_notes for every insn in a SCHED_GROUP.
See my last message -- that's the code I'm running right now.  If it
doesn't work, let me know and we can iterate to a solution.

  > 	(schedule_block): When checking whether an insn is the 
  > 	basic_block_head of a different block, use the first insn in the
  > 	same SCHED_GROUP instead of the insn itself.
Done.  Slightly differently, but should be functionally equivalent
and a little clearer to someone who might read the code later.


  > 	(debug_dependencies): GET_RTX_NAME takes an rtx code, not an rtx.
Done.

Jeff

Re: Unique SMTP From header?

[Dan A. Dickey]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------34E1C86DEF52D15062591CA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Peter Seebach wrote:

> >Is it possible to set the envelope sender of all mail coming from the
> list
> >to some unique address, e.g. egcs-errors@cygnus.com, or something
> similar?
> >It would make sorting with procmail much easier.
>
> Seconded!
>
> I hope in the near future to be able to sort my mail, and I am hoping
> for
> all of my mailing lists to be easily identifiable.
>
> -s

Isn't the To: egcs@cygnus.com unique enough?
Of course, it might appear in a CC: line.
    -Dan

--
Dan A. Dickey  http://www.transition.com/
mailto:ddickey@transition.com


--------------34E1C86DEF52D15062591CA0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Dan Dickey
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin:          vcard
fn:             Dan Dickey
n:              Dickey;Dan
org:            Transition Networks, Inc.
adr:            6475 City West Parkway;;;Eden Prairie;MN;55344;USA
email;internet: ddickey@transition.com
title:          Sr. Software Engineer
tel;work:       612-941-7600
tel;fax:        612-941-2322
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end:            vcard


--------------34E1C86DEF52D15062591CA0--

Re: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <m0x0r16-0004edC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
  > > 
  > >   In message <m0x0opG-0004edC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
  > >   > I have some problem s with my emails for the past few days. I may
  > >   > have lost some. I only remember your comments on BUFSIZ being a macro
  > ,
  > >   > which turned out ok. What else?
  > > Relatively minor stuff.
  > > 
  > > For this pass #if 0 the prototypes for xmalloc and related funtions;
  > > once the bulk of the prototypes are in, please submit a separate
  > > patch to enable prototyping of xmalloc and related functions.
  > 
  > On my machine, they are enabled.
Please disable them for the patch.

  > That is exactly the problem with size_t. How can you be
  > sure size_t is available on all systems when xmalloc ()
  > is used? many xmalloc () in gcc use unsigned. I think
  > it makes some senses.
NO!  You simply can't change from size_t to unsigned, that's
just plain wrong.

Seems to me the right way to do this is with autoconf.


  > I have spent weeks on it. I am afraid I may make some
  > stupid mistakes if I try to reformat it. After all,
  > those prototypes are mainly for compiler. Please feel
  > free to reformat it. Thanks.
Then they're not likely to go in anytime soon.  I don't have the
time to spend reformatting all your changes.

  > Here is what I have in my i386.h:
  > 
  > #define NEED_enum_rtx_code    
  > #include "rtl.def"                
  > #undef NEED_enum_rtx_code                                        
  > #define NEED_enum_machine_mode                                     
  > #include "machmode.def"               
  > #undef NEED_enum_machine_mode                       
I had a feeling you'd done something like this -- let's punt this
for now until we can come up with something better.


So, it seems to me you need to do 3 things:

  * #if0 the xmalloc and friends prototypes.
  * Don't mess with the enum rtx_code and enum tree_code stuff
    right now.
  * Do some minor formatting.

We're not talking about a lot of work that you'd need to do to
get your patches installed immediately.

Jeff

Re: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c

[H.J. Lu]

> 
> 
> > #define NEED_enum_rtx_code    
> > #include "rtl.def"                
> > #undef NEED_enum_rtx_code                                        
> > #define NEED_enum_machine_mode                                     
> > #include "machmode.def"               
> > #undef NEED_enum_machine_mode                       
> > 
> > .....
> > extern int ix86_expand_binary_operator 
> >         PROTO ((enum rtx_code, enum machine_mode, struct rtx_def *[]));
> > .....
> 
> This looks ugly.  I agree with Kenner's comments a while back about
> changes to the #include conventions in gcc.  Target .h files shouldn't
> need to include any gcc files.  We should minimize nested includes
> within gcc.

It does look ugly. But it works.

> 
> There are a few ways to solve the problem of the target .h file
> needing more definitions.
> 
> We could make the rtl and tree definitions visible in every gcc file
> (like the machine modes are now).  Then tm.h would have all types
> available.
> 
> We could require tm.h to test whether it is being used in a front-end
> or back-end context and not use any names not defined in that context.
> 
> Either of these requires rtl.h (less the very few target-dependent
> macros) or tree.h to be included _before_ tm.h.  The changes are
> simple but almost every file in gcc (including machine descriptions)
> would need to change.  If we plan to do a front/middle/back-end
> interface cleanup it would be best to defer the changes until then and
> make them all at once.

I have spent the time to make a patch. Why should we wait for something
which noone knows when it will be ever done? Besides my patch is small
enough that it is easy to take out.

> 
> Another option is to declare function arguments as integers instead of
> enumerated types in tm.{c,h}.
> 

I don't know if it is a good idea since those *.def are included
multiple time to have a correct match.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)

Re: Unique SMTP From header?

[Nick STEPHEN]

The mailing list *does* seem to be weirdly set up, however, I manage
successfully sort on this line:

Return-path: law@cygnus.com

Sorting on a To: field is a Bad Thing(TM).

Re: Unique SMTP From header?

[Peter Seebach]

>Is it possible to set the envelope sender of all mail coming from the list
>to some unique address, e.g. egcs-errors@cygnus.com, or something similar?
>It would make sorting with procmail much easier.

Seconded!

I hope in the near future to be able to sort my mail, and I am hoping for
all of my mailing lists to be easily identifiable.

-s

Unique SMTP From header?

[Thomas Koenig]

Is it possible to set the envelope sender of all mail coming from the list
to some unique address, e.g. egcs-errors@cygnus.com, or something similar?
It would make sorting with procmail much easier.

-- 
Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet.
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.