FW: FW: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group

FW: FW: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group

[Deepti Sharma]

Hello,

Can you please help me in getting this message deleted from the archive?
http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg65218.html

I am not sure if I am targeting the right mail-id for this. I am really
sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks,
Deepti


-----Original Message-----
From: Deepti Sharma [mailto:deepti.gccretarget@gmail.com] 
Sent: 30 August 2012 09:39
To: 'Ian Lance Taylor'
Subject: RE: FW: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:iant@google.com]
> Sent: 30 August 2012 04:59
> To: Deepti Sharma
> Subject: Re: FW: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group
> 
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Deepti Sharma 
> <deepti.gccretarget@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please help me get this done as early as possible? I am 
> > extremely sorry for the trouble.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The right address for this is overseers@gcc.gnu.org, by the way.
> 
> Ian

Thanks for the help, Ian. However, I still see the message on the archive at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg65218.html.
Do I need to check with overseers@gcc.gnu.org for this as well?
 

 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Deepti Sharma [mailto:deepti.gccretarget@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 29 August 2012 17:42
> > To: 'gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org'
> > Subject: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group
> >
> > Hello GCC list owner,
> >
> > Could you please get this message deleted from your records urgently?
> > It is an official mail, and sent by mistake to the group. Please
> help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Deepti
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Deepti Sharma
> > Sent: 29 August 2012 17:37
> > To: 'GCC'
> > Subject: FW: Minutes of Meeting (29-Aug-2012): Status and Queries in
> > icyflex2 Work Package 1 and 2
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Deepti Sharma [mailto:deepti.sharma@rf-silicon.com]
> > Sent: 29 August 2012 17:36
> > To: 'MORGAN Marc-Nicolas'
> > Cc: 'rahul.sud@silicon-capital.com'; 'Gopal Dharmaraj'; 
> > 'satish.bhonsle@rf-silicon.com'; 'rakesh.adhikari@rf-silicon.com'; 
> > 'damodar.sonone@rf-silicon.com'; 'Hari Shankar Singh'; 'VOLET 
> > Patrick'; 'NAGEL Jean-Luc'
> > Subject: Minutes of Meeting (29-Aug-2012): Status and Queries in
> > icyflex2 Work Package 1 and 2
> >
> > Hello Marc,
> >
> > Please find below the Minutes of today's meeting.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Deepti
> >
> >
> > Topic: Status and Queries icfx2 WP1 and WP2 Date : 29-Aug-12
> > (Wednesday) Time : 14:00 Hrs - 14:35 Hrs IST
> >
> > Members Present:
> > -----------------
> > [CSEM]
> > 1. Marc MORGAN
> > 2. Patrick VOLET
> > 3. Jean-Luc NAGEL
> >
> > [RF-Silicon]
> > 1. Deepti Sharma
> > 2. Damodar Sonone
> > 3. Gaganpreet
> > 4. Shweta Gupta
> > 5. Amit Ranjan
> >
> > Summary
> > --------
> > 1. The status and queries regarding WP1 and WP2 were mailed to CSEM.
> >
> > Mail Reference: Agenda document for call on 29-Aug-2012
> > Dated         : 28-Aug-2012
> > Document      :
> > Icyflex2-GCC-Compiler-WorkPackage-StatusAndQueries_29Aug2012.pdf
> >
> > 2. The status of WP1 was discussed as follows:
> >
> > Activities Completed
> > ---------------------
> > a. RF-Silicon has resolved the problem in WP1 sent by CSEM. The test 
> > suite contains 2 unexpected (execution) errors for the WP1 solution.
> >
> > b. The latest release was done to CSEM on 28-Aug-2012.
> >
> > c. Marc said that they are happy with the fix done by RFS.
> >
> > Bottlenecks
> > ------------
> > a. The test suite contains 2 unexpected (execution) errors for the
> WP1
> > solution.
> >
> > b. Deepti asked if CSEM has graphical simulator to step through the 
> > instructions.
> >
> > c. Marc replied that they do not have a graphical simulator. We can 
> > use the icfx2-run utility to see the cycles taken by the program.
> >
> > d. Deepti asked how we can dump the content of registers at each 
> > instruction. Marc said that we can try the command line options 
> > print-after-cycles or verbose option to see the registers dump.
> >
> > e. Deepti asked if CSEM has got a chance to have a look at the 
> > execution errors. Jean said that after a quick look, it was observed 
> > that the program aborts, but the exact cause is yet to be debugged.
> >
> > f. Marc suggested RFS to check with icfx2-run utility. If RFS is 
> > getting stuck, or is unable to debug further, we should inform them
> so
> > that CSEM might have a look at the issue to help us moving further.
> >
> > g. Marc said that if RFS is not able to understand the icfx2-run 
> > utility, he will provide some documentation on usage of the tool.
> >
> >
> > Additional Issues Resolved
> > ----------------------------
> > a. RFS had observed additional patterns having same problem as WP1.
> > Most of the patterns have been fixed by RFS, except issue 2.
> >
> > movi r2, #.LC1
> > movb (px7,0), r2
> >
> > b. Deepti told that this issue is related with removal of PSImode.
> So,
> > she suggested if we can consider this issue to be fixed along with
> WP2.
> >
> > c. Jean said that it might not be an issue at all, since the first 
> > instruction moves an address to r2 and second instruction reads it.
> It
> > is not a load instruction, and might not create any stalls. However, 
> > RFS should verify this to confirm that the latency of the first
> instruction is zero.
> >
> > d. The verbose option of the scheduler may be used to check the
> stalls
> > for these instructions.
> >
> >
> > Use of -frename-registers
> > ---------------------------
> > a. Marc confirmed that the test case that he had sent yesterday,
> needs
> > to use frename-registers, as suggested by RFS.
> >
> > b. Deepti asked whether they want RFS to work on to enable this
> option
> > by default for icfx2?
> >
> > c. Jean replied that it can be done, if it is not very complex. 
> > Also, gcc test suite should be run again to verify that all tests 
> > are
> passing.
> >
> > d. Also, RFS should suggest if there are additional options that 
> > should be enabled by default for icfx2.
> >
> > e. Deepti asked if CSEM would like some command line option like 
> > -Oicfx2, to enable all options required by icfx2.
> >
> > f. Jean replied that they don’t want the user to specify additional
> option.
> > So, it must be enabled in the code itself.
> > In addition, a command line option like -fnorename-registers can be 
> > provided, to disable default renaming of registers.
> >
> > g. Deepti confirmed that RFS can take up this task.
> >
> >
> > 3. The status of WP2 was discussed as follows:
> >
> > Activities Completed
> > ---------------------
> > a. Deepti mentioned that RFS has completed setup for WP2, and is 
> > able to achieve the same test result as sent by CSEM. She further
> mentioned
> > that 16 unexpected errors of segmentation fault are resolved by 
> > increasing the stack size and currently we are left with 60
> unexpected errors.
> >
> > b. RFS can now start the work on WP2.
> >
> > c. Jean mentioned that they had deactivated some command line 
> > options (dce, if-conversion2), to suppress some errors in the gcc test
suite.
> > If they enable these options, the test suite results in more errors.
> > RFS should check on these options.
> >
> > d. Out of the 60 errors obtained for gcc 4.6.3 (without applying the 
> > no-psi patch), some are due to known issue of gcc, for which patch 
> > is
> available.
> > CSEM will share the link to the patch. On applying the patch, the 
> > errors reduce further.
> >
> > e. Deepti told that RFS team will investigate on this and resolve 
> > the errors.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Deepti Sharma [mailto:deepti.sharma@rf-silicon.com]
> >> Sent: 29 August 2012 09:45
> >> To: 'MORGAN Marc-Nicolas'
> >> Cc: rahul.sud@silicon-capital.com; 'Gopal Dharmaraj'; 
> >> satish.bhonsle@rf-silicon.com; rakesh.adhikari@rf-silicon.com; 
> >> damodar.sonone@rf-silicon.com; 'Hari Shankar Singh'; 'VOLET
> Patrick';
> >> 'NAGEL Jean-Luc'
> >> Subject: RE: Agenda document for call on 29-Aug-2012
> >>
> >> Hello Marc,
> >>
> >> We thank you for your feedback. We look forward for the discussion.
> >>
> >> We have checked the attached test case, and we understand that you 
> >> have not used command line option "frename-registers". Please note 
> >> that gcc by default allocates registers optimally, and to reduce 
> >> false dependencies, we need to use -frename-registers option. We
> have
> >> explained this in the Problem Analysis report for WP1.
> >>
> >> We are obtaining different assembly with "-O2 -frename-registers".
> >> The file is attached for your reference. Please confirm.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Deepti
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: MORGAN Marc-Nicolas [mailto:marc.morgan@csem.ch]
> >> > Sent: 28 August 2012 20:55
> >> > To: Deepti Sharma
> >> > Cc: rahul.sud@silicon-capital.com; 'Gopal Dharmaraj'; 
> >> > satish.bhonsle@rf-silicon.com; rakesh.adhikari@rf-silicon.com; 
> >> > damodar.sonone@rf-silicon.com; 'Hari Shankar Singh'; VOLET
> Patrick;
> >> > NAGEL Jean-Luc; MORGAN Marc-Nicolas
> >> > Subject: RE: Agenda document for call on 29-Aug-2012
> >> >
> >> > Hi Deepti,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the agenda and the questions. We had a short meeting 
> >> > here among ourselves to prepare the discussion for tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding WP1, we are quite impressed with the result you have
> been
> >> > able to achieve. We understand the work is not completely
> finalized
> >> > since there are still 2 unexpected errors to sort out.
> >> >
> >> > The question which came up is whether or not your solution is
> >> generic.
> >> > It seems like the solution works well for memory to memory copies.
> >> > It is not completely generic in that if a C code does something 
> >> > similar to a memory to memory copy, the solution no longer
> applies.
> >> > I'm attaching a sample C code and the corresponding disassembled 
> >> > code which shows a counter example. This obviously does not 
> >> > diminish in
> >> any
> >> > way your solution which I'm sure we will be using.
> >> >
> >> > We were wondering whether you had considered a solution based on 
> >> > modifying the scheduler to distinguish the latencies of 
> >> > dependencies of the individual resources of the instruction. It 
> >> > seems that gcc supports hooks to do this. The team here seems to 
> >> > think this would be a path worth exploring. Let's discuss it
> tomorrow as well.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Marc
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Deepti Sharma [mailto:deepti.sharma@rf-silicon.com]
> >> > Sent: mardi 28 août 2012 13:45
> >> > To: MORGAN Marc-Nicolas
> >> > Cc: rahul.sud@silicon-capital.com; 'Gopal Dharmaraj'; 
> >> > satish.bhonsle@rf-silicon.com; rakesh.adhikari@rf-silicon.com; 
> >> > damodar.sonone@rf-silicon.com; 'Hari Shankar Singh'; VOLET
> Patrick;
> >> > NAGEL Jean-Luc
> >> > Subject: Agenda document for call on 29-Aug-2012
> >> >
> >> > Hello Marc,
> >> >
> >> > Please find attached the agenda document for tomorrow's call. The 
> >> > document also contains our queries that we would like to discuss 
> >> > during the call.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Deepti
> >

Re: FW: FW: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group

[Jonathan Larmour]

On 30/08/12 05:14, Deepti Sharma wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Can you please help me in getting this message deleted from the archive?
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg65218.html

The overseers have no control over external sites.

I suggest you read <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#archive-archive>
which is essentially referring to the same sort of problem. By now your
mail has been sent to thousands of people, and duplicated and archived in
countless places all across the internet, both public and private. For
example as well as mail-archive.com:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel or
http://readlist.com/lists/gcc.gnu.org/gcc/ or
http://marc.info/?l=gcc&r=1&w=2 and so on and so on. It is simply too late
to do anything about it. Removing it from just the gcc.gnu.org/sourceware
archives would achieve nothing in practice. As that link indicates and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html "Policies" section says, we do not edit the
archives, other than to remove viruses or illegal material.

Incidentally, you also managed to quote the email you wanted hiding in
full in your message (I've not quoted it again), which means it has now
been duplicated into the archives for this mailing list as well, and
therefore across the internet a second time.

You just have to face up to the fact that you sent something out to the
world you shouldn't have, it's not possible to unsend it, and move on.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: FW: FW: URGENT... Please delete this mail from group

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:38:16PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>On 30/08/12 05:14, Deepti Sharma wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Can you please help me in getting this message deleted from the archive?
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg65218.html
>
>The overseers have no control over external sites.
>
>I suggest you read <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#archive-archive>
>which is essentially referring to the same sort of problem. By now your
>mail has been sent to thousands of people, and duplicated and archived in
>countless places all across the internet, both public and private. For
>example as well as mail-archive.com:
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel or
>http://readlist.com/lists/gcc.gnu.org/gcc/ or
>http://marc.info/?l=gcc&r=1&w=2 and so on and so on. It is simply too late
>to do anything about it. Removing it from just the gcc.gnu.org/sourceware
>archives would achieve nothing in practice. As that link indicates and the
>http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html "Policies" section says, we do not edit the
>archives, other than to remove viruses or illegal material.

Except that we made an exception in this case and, amazingly, the OP
*compounded* *the* *problem*.  The mind boggles.

cgf