December 2008 - Gpc

Inefficiency of `mod'
by Emil Jerabek 26 Oct '10

26 Oct '10

Hi, during some debugging I noticed that GPC generates very hairy code for the `mod' operator with signed arguments. A closer look revealed that the code contains a lot of branching on conditions which can be determined on compile time, and most surprisingly, the value of X mod Y is recomputed _twice_, if X is negative. (I've attached a commented assembler dump.) This may be partially a back-end problem (CSE?), but I feel there's something wrong in the relevant code in gpc-common.c (build_pascal_binary_op) as well. `exp1 mod exp2' gets translated into something like exp2 <= 0 ? error : exp1 >= 0 ? exp1 mod exp2 : ((-exp1) mod exp2) == 0 ? 0 : exp2 - (-exp1) mod exp2 This arranges that both arguments supplied to the "internal mod" are non-negative, but this information is not passed on -- the arguments are still declared as signed types, which apparently makes the back-end to produce the mess it does. I've done a little test: the following replacement for `mod', which differs from the built-in one essentially just by the type-casts to `Cardinal', inline operator xmod (X, Y: Integer) = Z: Integer; begin if Y <= 0 then RuntimeError (714); if X >= 0 then Z := Cardinal (X) mod Y else begin Z := Cardinal (-X) mod Y; if Z <> 0 then Z := Y - Z end end; indeed generates a better code, it measures about 15% faster for positive X and more than twice faster for negative X. YMMV. If this is possible in user code, it should work in the compiler internals as well :) The result type of the whole `mod' expression looks dubious too. IIUIC, `exp1 mod exp2' inherits the type of exp1. Now, the result of `mod' is guaranteed to be nonnegative and to fit in the type of exp2 (or more precisely, it is in 0 .. High (type of (exp2)) - 1), whereas it needn't have anything to do with the type of exp1: consider var X, Z: Integer; Y: LongInt; begin X := -8; Y := High (LongInt); Z := X mod Y { -> overflow } end Or am I missing something? Emil (BTW, where is fjf434c.pas?)

10 16

GPC support for AIX 6?
by Gert Doering 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

Hi Gnu Pascal list, we're currently using IBM's xpc pascal compiler on IBM AIX 5.3. New machines are being shipped with AIX 6, and IBM's xpc is no longer supported there - for the time being, it actuall works (the xpc frontend generated intermediate code, and the second stage compiler still groks it). Management is not happy about this, as it might break any day, and I have been asked to "provide GPC" on AIX 6. Googling seems to suggest that the earliest release of GCC to work on AIX 6 is gcc 4.2.4 This mailing list's archive suggests that GPC and GCC 4.2 do not yet work together, due to larger efforts required due to backend changes (Waldek's mail from March 12, 2008). I reported this to management ("there is no GPC on AIX 6"), and they came back with the question "if we pay one of the GPC developers to do a GPC port to a recent GCC, to support AIX 6, how much would that cost?". Here we go - I'm posing this question to you. Is one of you capable and willing to make GPC work on AIX 6? And if yes, what would your conditions be (estimated time to do this, estimated costs)? (I can't promise anything, but will report back to management and they will decide...) thanks, gert -- Gert Doering gd(a)medat.de MEDAT Muenchen Tel: 089/126808-0 Fax: -50

7 13

New (gpc-20060325)
by Waldek Hebisch 08 Dec '09

08 Dec '09

I have put a new gpc snapshot at: http://www.math.uni.wroc.pl/~hebisch/gpc-20060325.tar.bz2 Main change is preliminary gcc-4.0.x support. The other changes are rather small. Note that for "production use" 3.4.x and 3.3.x backend are prefered. Also, using 2.8.1, 2.95.3 and 3.2.3 backend should work, but is depreciated. For more detail see: http://www.math.uni.wroc.pl/~hebisch/gpc/NEWS-20060325 and http://www.math.uni.wroc.pl/~hebisch/gpc/Fixed-20060325 -- Waldek Hebisch hebisch(a)math.uni.wroc.pl

7 44

Re: Linux Binaries and Makefile
by Kevan Hashemi 30 Mar '09

30 Mar '09

Dear Prof O, > On your "desktop" in Linux? That sounds odd to me. Everything I do is a bit odd. > If you don't know what you're doing, yes. That's precisely my point: I don't know what I'm doing. > An exaggeration. As I said, on a modern PC (e.g., an Athlon XP 3800), it > only takes a few minutes I was not refering to "compile time". I was referring to "Where on earth do I get a non-broken version of sed? What is sed anyway? Why won't patch work on this machine with these diff files? Is it patch that's not working or is it just that I'm a retard? What does it mean that the .tar.bz.tar archive is in an unrecognizable format?" Compiling GPC will be four hours work for me, minimum. > If you find one, it may not work. So far, that 20041218 distribution of binaries has worked on every single one of the two dozen machines we have loaded it onto. Why would the 20070904 distribution fail to work? Yours, Kevan -- Kevan Hashemi, Electrical Engineer Physics Department, Brandeis University http://alignment.hep.brandeis.edu/

4 7

Linux Binaries and Makefile
by Kevan Hashemi 01 Jan '09

01 Jan '09

Dear GPC, The African Chief maintains the Windows version of GPC, now using 20070904 sources. Adriaan maintains the MacOS version, now using 20070904 sources. I think the outstanding question for Prince and me is the Linux version. There is no binary distribution of the 20070904 GPC that I can find. I use the 20041218 version on Linux. I suppose most Linux users are happy to compile GPC from sources. But I'm not a Linux expert: I just port my code to Linux for my Linux users. So I'm stuck with 20041218, and my code has to remain compatible with the older GPC. (I have a bunch of compiler directives to get the module names right.) Suppose I wanted to compile the 20070904 sources on Linux. How would I go about it? Yours, Kevan -- Kevan Hashemi, Electrical Engineer Physics Department, Brandeis University http://alignment.hep.brandeis.edu/

8 21

Turning Off Specific Compiler Warnings
by Yang Lao 01 Jan '09

01 Jan '09

Is there a way to turn off specific compiler warnings? The particular warning that gets in the way of the more helpful ones is: warning: missing string capacity - assuming 255

3 4

Linux Binaries and Makefile
by Mario Fetka 24 Dec '08

24 Dec '08

Hallo, i have read trough the mail archive : " From: Prince Riley Subject: Linux Binaries and Makefile Date: 15 Dec 2008, 16:32:20 ..... There's been a suggestion to have a repository set up on Sourceforge which is a very well known open source project repository. If anyone would like to suggest another site, please do so. .... " my suggestion is to setup the version controllsystem on gnu-pascal.de and a bugtracker if needed mailinglist already exists my second suggestion is to create repositories for the different os's on gnu-pascal.de for ex: packages.gnu-pascal.de/deb for debian/ubuntu packages.gnu-pascal.de/mandriva packages.gnu-pascal.de/fedora packages.gnu-pascal.de/suse just my 2 euro Cent Mario

4 4

Re: Linux Binaries and Makefile
by Prof A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) 24 Dec '08

24 Dec '08

On 16 Dec 2008 at 10:49 Kevan Hashemi wrote: >I downloaded to my Linux machine (home folder, not desktop). >I extracted. I see the pascal folder. I run pascal/bin/gpc. sudo tar -zxvf gpc-20070904.i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz -C / export PATH=$PATH:/pascal/bin Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.greatchief.plus.com/

4 9

Re: Linux Binaries and Makefile
by Yang Lao 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Per distro setups. On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Martin Marques <mmarques(a)unl.edu.ar> wrote: > What situation are you talking of? > > Yang Lao escribió: > >> Please do not do this. The Linux Standard Base exists in order to avoid >> this situation. >> >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Mario Fetka <mario.fetka(a)gmail.com<mailto: >> mario.fetka(a)gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> my suggestion is to setup the version controllsystem on >> gnu-pascal.de <http://gnu-pascal.de> >> and a bugtracker if needed >> mailinglist already exists >> >> my second suggestion is to create repositories for the different os's >> on gnu-pascal.de <http://gnu-pascal.de> >> >> for ex: >> >> packages.gnu-pascal.de/deb <http://packages.gnu-pascal.de/deb> for >> debian/ubuntu >> packages.gnu-pascal.de/mandriva < >> http://packages.gnu-pascal.de/mandriva> >> packages.gnu-pascal.de/fedora >> packages.gnu-pascal.de/suse >> <http://packages.gnu-pascal.de/fedorapackages.gnu-pascal.de/suse> >> >> just my 2 euro Cent >> >> Mario >> >> >> >> >> >> >

1 0

Re: Turning Off Specific Compiler Warnings
by Adriaan van Os 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

(repost) Yang Lao wrote: > Is there a way to turn off specific compiler warnings? In general {$local W-} DoSomethingPotentiallyDangerous; {$endlocal} or on the command-line -Wno-xxx (e.g. -Wno-cast-align) > The particular warning that gets in the way of the more helpful ones is: > > warning: missing string capacity - assuming 255 but I don't know of an xxx for this particular warning. Regards, Adriaan van Os

1 0