Message ID | 526978A3.30708@net-b.de |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Hi Tobias,
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Any comments? Or is the patch OK?
thanks for doing this.
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html
===================================================================
+ <li>With the new <a
+ href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html"
+ ><code>#pragma GCC ivdep</code></a>, the user can assert that there are no
+ loop-carried dependencies which would prevent that consecutive iterations of
+ the following loop can be executed concurrently with SIMD (single instruction
+ multiple data) instructions.</li>
That would flow a bit nicer if you say "...prevent concurrent execution
of consecutive iterations using..." or something like that, I believe?
+ allocatable components of variables declared in the main program. The
+ Fortran standard states since 2008 explicitly that variables declared
+ in the Fortran main program automatically have the <code>SAVE</code>
+ attribute.</li>
How about "Since 2008 the Fortran standard..." or "Fortran 2008 and later
standards..." ?
+ about <code>DO</code> loops with zero iterations. This warning is now
Good catch!
The patch looks good if you consider my comments (which is not
necessarily the same as following all of them ;-).
Gerald
Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> Any comments? Or is the patch OK? > thanks for doing this. Thanks for looking at the patch. However, the patch has a link problem. The documentation is at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html That's also the link I use in the changes.html file. However, some script changes the link to: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop-Specific-Pragmas.html which won't work. Try yourself at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html Actually, a similar issue was reported at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-10/msg00132.html Does anyone know which script modifies those links? Tobias
Tobias Burnus wrote: > Thanks for looking at the patch. However, the patch has a link > problem. The documentation is at > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html > > That's also the link I use in the changes.html file. However, some > script changes the link to: > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop-Specific-Pragmas.html > which won't work. Try yourself at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html > > > Actually, a similar issue was reported at > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-10/msg00132.html The reason for the broken links are the following lines in the /www/bin/preprocess script: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/wwwdocs/bin/preprocess.diff?r1=1.38&r2=1.39&f=h Gerald, do you still know why you added it 9 years ago? The commit comment is "Use sed to work around makeinfo 4.7 brokenness." I think "makeinfo" is still broken, but those pages do not seem to go through the preprocess script, which means that only links to that page will change to a hyphen, breaking the links. Do you think it would be sensible to remove those lines again - or, alternatively, to run a similar script (e.g. "perl -i -e 's/_002d/-/g' `find onlinedocs -name \*.html`) on the onlinedocs/. I think the impact of the the former on links is smaller. (One still needs to re-run the script on those files to restore the links.) Tobias
On October 25, 2013 22:32, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Tobias Burnus wrote: >> Thanks for looking at the patch. However, the patch has a link >> problem. The documentation is at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html >> >> That's also the link I use in the changes.html file. However, some >> script changes the link to: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop-Specific-Pragmas.html >> which won't work. Try yourself at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html >> >> >> Actually, a similar issue was reported at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-10/msg00132.html > > The reason for the broken links are the following lines in the > /www/bin/preprocess script: > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/wwwdocs/bin/preprocess.diff?r1=1.38&r2=1.39&f=h > > Gerald, do you still know why you added it 9 years ago? The commit > comment is "Use sed to work around makeinfo 4.7 brokenness." > > I think "makeinfo" is still broken, but those pages do not seem to go > through the preprocess script, which means that only links to that > page will change to a hyphen, breaking the links. > > Do you think it would be sensible to remove those lines again - or, > alternatively, to run a similar script (e.g. "perl -i -e 's/_002d/-/g' > `find onlinedocs -name \*.html`) on the onlinedocs/. > > I think the impact of the the former on links is smaller. (One still > needs to re-run the script on those files to restore the links.) > > Tobias >
Working on it. I hope to have a patch within the next 48 hours. Gerald
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.28 diff -u -p -r1.28 changes.html --- htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html 3 Oct 2013 14:15:36 -0000 1.28 +++ htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html 24 Oct 2013 19:44:28 -0000 @@ -84,6 +84,13 @@ <b>test.C:2:46:</b> <b style='color:red'>error:</b> incomplete type ‘<b>X<100></b>’ used in nested name specifier </pre></li> + + <li>With the new <a + href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Loop_002dSpecific-Pragmas.html" + ><code>#pragma GCC ivdep</code></a>, the user can assert that there are no + loop-carried dependencies which would prevent that consecutive iterations of + the following loop can be executed concurrently with SIMD (single instruction + multiple data) instructions.</li> </ul> <!-- @@ -173,13 +180,18 @@ void f(int n) { trying to mix old code with new code will usually give an error message.)</li> </ul></li> + <li>GNU Fortran no longer deallocates allocatable variables or + allocatable components of variables declared in the main program. The + Fortran standard states since 2008 explicitly that variables declared + in the Fortran main program automatically have the <code>SAVE</code> + attribute.</li> </ul></li> <li>The deprecated command-line option <code>-fno-whole-file</code> has been removed. (<code>-fwhole-file</code> is the default since GCC 4.6.) <code>-fwhole-file</code>/<code>-fno-whole-file</code> continue to be accepted but do not influence the code generation.</li> <li>The compiler no longer unconditionally warns - about <code>DO</code>loops with zero iterations. This warning is now + about <code>DO</code> loops with zero iterations. This warning is now controlled by the <code>-Wzerotrips</code> option, which is implied by <code>-Wall</code>.</li> <li>The new <code>NO_ARG_CHECK</code> attribute of the <a