* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 7:09 GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) Jakub Jelinek
@ 2011-09-09 7:16 ` Richard Guenther
2011-09-09 13:56 ` Andrew MacLeod
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard Guenther @ 2011-09-09 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> Status
> ======
>
> The trunk is in Stage 1, which, if we follow roughly the 4.6
> release schedule, should end around end of October.
> At this point I'd like to gather the status of the various
> development branches that haven't been merged into trunk yet
> and whether it is possible to merge them with such a schedule
> or whether e.g. a two weeks delay would help them.
> In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within
> a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch,
> bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
> cilkplus, gupc (I assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)?
Bitfield lowering is not going to happen (well, completely at least) unless
I can find some more time to work on it. Instead I want to finally
make no-longer-sign-extending sizetypes happen for 4.7, which currently
only waits on Ada frontend issues.
Btw, end of October will then be 7 1/2 month worth of stage1 already.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 7:09 GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) Jakub Jelinek
2011-09-09 7:16 ` Richard Guenther
@ 2011-09-09 13:56 ` Andrew MacLeod
2011-09-09 16:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew MacLeod @ 2011-09-09 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers
On 09/09/2011 03:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within
> a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch,
There will certainly be some parts of the branch which would be
appropriate for merging with mainline in october. We ought to at least
have the new __sync_mem builtins available to replace the old ones, and
the testing infrastructure. Im not sure we will have *all* the
infrastructure in place, but it should be pretty close if not. Its also
fairly low risk.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 7:09 GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) Jakub Jelinek
2011-09-09 7:16 ` Richard Guenther
2011-09-09 13:56 ` Andrew MacLeod
@ 2011-09-09 16:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
2011-09-13 8:01 ` Jan Hubicka
2011-09-12 13:51 ` Aldy Hernandez
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2011-09-09 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers
On 09/09/2011 03:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ======
>
> The trunk is in Stage 1, which, if we follow roughly the 4.6
> release schedule, should end around end of October.
> At this point I'd like to gather the status of the various
> development branches that haven't been merged into trunk yet
> and whether it is possible to merge them with such a schedule
> or whether e.g. a two weeks delay would help them.
> In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within
> a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch,
> bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
> cilkplus, gupc (I assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)?
>
LRA is a long project. At the best case it will be ready for 4.8 but
most probably for 4.9.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 16:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
@ 2011-09-13 8:01 ` Jan Hubicka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jan Hubicka @ 2011-09-13 8:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, gcc, Joseph S. Myers
> On 09/09/2011 03:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Status
>> ======
>>
>> The trunk is in Stage 1, which, if we follow roughly the 4.6
>> release schedule, should end around end of October.
>> At this point I'd like to gather the status of the various
>> development branches that haven't been merged into trunk yet
>> and whether it is possible to merge them with such a schedule
>> or whether e.g. a two weeks delay would help them.
>> In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within
>> a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch,
>> bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
>> cilkplus, gupc (I assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)?
>>
> LRA is a long project. At the best case it will be ready for 4.8 but
> most probably for 4.9.
There are some LTO bits I would still like to be done for 4.7, so we
get it ready for production at least for some packages. We discusse
dthis briefly with Richard/Michael/Martin and generally most improtant
seems to be:
1) Making -g not ICE and hopefuly produce useable debug info
(-g works relatively well for C, so it would make LTO useful to build
i.e. command line tools/binutils etc. that might by itself bring
interesting speedups given that binnaries shrink.)
2) Adding sane method for handling command line options
3) Slim LTO
4) Solving the COMDAT problems with plugin API
5) There are still some bugs in symbol table handling
We plan to work on those, but any help is apprechiated.
2-5 are obviously all doable before end of october.
Honza
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 7:09 GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) Jakub Jelinek
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-09 16:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
@ 2011-09-12 13:51 ` Aldy Hernandez
2011-10-08 16:59 ` Torvald Riegel
2011-09-12 15:53 ` Jeff Law
2011-09-22 21:00 ` Gary Funck
5 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Aldy Hernandez @ 2011-09-12 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers, triegel
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within
> a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch,
> bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
Torvald and I are looking into getting things merge read, but...
The main problem seems to be that the TM community still hasn't formally
submitted the C++ changes to the standards committee, and are still
swinging between two alternate syntax implementations. So unless, this
gets resolved in the next month, transactional memory will have to sit
this one out.
Torvald, is this a fair assessment?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-12 13:51 ` Aldy Hernandez
@ 2011-10-08 16:59 ` Torvald Riegel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Torvald Riegel @ 2011-10-08 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: aldyh; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, gcc, Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:51 -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within
> > a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch,
> > bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
>
> Torvald and I are looking into getting things merge read, but...
>
> The main problem seems to be that the TM community still hasn't formally
> submitted the C++ changes to the standards committee, and are still
> swinging between two alternate syntax implementations. So unless, this
> gets resolved in the next month, transactional memory will have to sit
> this one out.
>
> Torvald, is this a fair assessment?
The group working on the C++ TM specification has made progress, and I
think we now have something that is basically okay for most people that
are involved.
Thus, I think that it would be good to include TM.
Torvald
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 7:09 GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) Jakub Jelinek
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-12 13:51 ` Aldy Hernandez
@ 2011-09-12 15:53 ` Jeff Law
2011-09-22 21:00 ` Gary Funck
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2011-09-12 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers
On 09/09/2011 01:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
> cilkplus, gupc (I assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)?
The bits on reload-v2a provide range splitting and a second chance at
assigning a hard reg for unallocated allocnos. The code has been very
stable and shows a small improvement on x86/x86_64. The biggest concern
I have with the code is the compile-time performance, which I know is
bad, but I haven't done any serious measurements.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-09 7:09 GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) Jakub Jelinek
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-12 15:53 ` Jeff Law
@ 2011-09-22 21:00 ` Gary Funck
2011-10-19 21:05 ` Iyer, Balaji V
5 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Gary Funck @ 2011-09-22 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers
On 09/09/11 09:09:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> [...] What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph,
> cilkplus, gupc (I assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)?
For GUPC, we are targeting GCC 4.8.
thanks,
- Gary
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* RE: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
2011-09-22 21:00 ` Gary Funck
@ 2011-10-19 21:05 ` Iyer, Balaji V
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Iyer, Balaji V @ 2011-10-19 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gary Funck, Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Joseph S. Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Funck [mailto:gary@intrepid.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:00 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Joseph S. Myers
Subject: Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)
On 09/09/11 09:09:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> [...] What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph, cilkplus, gupc (I
I apologize for the late response, my radar didn't catch this message. Cilkplus is not currently feature-complete. We definitely hope to have it completed as soon as we can.
> assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)?
For GUPC, we are targeting GCC 4.8.
thanks,
- Gary
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread