Uros Bizjak wrote (privately, but I forwarded to GCC in order to get help):
Hello Paolo!
I was looking at PR middle-end/22480 if there is something to fix at the i386
backend. However, there is no documentation at all regarding vec_shl_ and
vec_shr_ builtins.
Heh, I'm quite at a loss regar
Hello,
Here is a question about porting gcc. After I modified machine.md and
other backend files, I can make cc1 and xgcc now. But libgcc2.o still
failed. I'd like to know does we must make libgcc2.o since the target
machine don't have float registers and 64bit registers.
Thanks a lot.
Eric
Hi all,
I maintain a port for a 16-bit VLIW machine, and I have encountered a
problem with the DFA instruction scheduler. Consider the following two
instructions:
BNE someLabel
STW R5,(R3) 0 // Mem[R3] := R5
The second instruction will only be executed if the branch isn't taken.
However, w
Original Message
>From: Eric Fisher
>Sent: 01 September 2005 09:43
> Hello,
>
> Here is a question about porting gcc. After I modified machine.md and
> other backend files, I can make cc1 and xgcc now. But libgcc2.o still
> failed. I'd like to know does we must make libgcc2.o since the t
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:09:35AM CEST:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> | The problem is that libtool tries to run ranlib after install and that
> | ranlib can fail if the library is not writable?
Thanks for the pointer.
> When I look more closely at this, I see in li
> Thanks! Do you know if this includes pthreads support in C++?
There's support for the older DCE threads in 10.X. This is dropped
in 11.X, but there's POSIX thread support.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
National Research Council of Canada
Hi,
I'm trying to debug a large C application that (amongst other things)
starts a JVM and uses Java's JDBC to connect to databases via JNI.
If I use the sourceforge bounds checking patch I get a sensible list of
errors (none from the JVM). I'd also like to use Mudflap however running
the program
"Jon Levell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to debug a large C application that (amongst other things)
> starts a JVM and uses Java's JDBC to connect to databases via JNI.
Brave!
> If I use the sourceforge bounds checking patch I get a sensible list
> of errors (none from the JVM). I'd
If you do change how this is implemented in the config* files, please
make sure that you still support cross compiling to Darwin. In that
case, the runtime libraries for the target would still run into this
issue,
because you'd be using the Darwin ranlib, even on a Linux build/host.
Shantonu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this
> >> in GCC)?
> >
> > ranlib is basic
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Should that be:
old_postinstall_cmds="$old_postinstall_cmds~\$RANLIB \$oldlib"
??
Yes, I believe so (both CVS HEAD and branch-1-5).
Unless there exists ranlib's that change file mode..
Okay, the attached pathces are applied to libtool HEAD and branch-1-5.
Thank you,
P
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:24:26AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 1) in the vectorizer, check in the optab if the predicate for each
> operand of an insn accepts a register. If not, refuse vectorization if
> the corresponding gimple operand is not constant.
That sounds plausible, yes.
> By the
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:12:51AM +0100, Daniel Towner wrote:
> Why is an anti-dependence used to enforce the ordering of the branch and
> the subsequent instruction?
Because gcc doesn't target true vliw machines, and given strict
program ordering of insn, anti-dependence is correct.
> ... and
Daniel Towner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I maintain a port for a 16-bit VLIW machine, and I have encountered a
> problem with the DFA instruction scheduler. Consider the following two
> instructions:
>
> BNE someLabel
> STW R5,(R3) 0 // Mem[R3] := R5
>
> The second instruction will only be e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > If you consider Darwin "modern", then that statement is not correct
> > as moving/copying an archive on darwin, requires ranlib to be run.
>
> Is there a point to this
> >you may try adding -fmove-loop-invariants flag, which enables new
> >invariant motion pass.
>
> That cleaned up both my simplified test case, and the code it
> originated from. It also cleaned up a few other cases where I
> was noticing worse performance with FDO enabled. Thanks!!
>
> Perhap
Dear Business Professional,
Im writing you today because Id like to invite you to list your CV or resume
with our expert witness referral service. There are literally in excess of 2
million litigation cases filed each year which require industry-specific
expertise of individuals such as yo
My current thinking is that, with a few exceptions like prologue
and epilogue generation, it should be considered a BUG if a port
uses gen_rtx_MEM. Almost always one should be using something
from the adjust_address family of routines.
What are the exact semantics of MEM_NOTRAP_P ? The documen
On Sep 1, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:16:23PM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I would suggest continuing to run ranlib after install, but not
failing if
it does not work.
Won't you then get warning messages on Darwin every time someone tries
to use the installe
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:16:23PM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> I would suggest continuing to run ranlib after install, but not failing if
> it does not work.
Won't you then get warning messages on Darwin every time someone tries
to use the installed library (since the symbol table timestamp wil
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 08:52:29PM +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> What are the exact semantics of MEM_NOTRAP_P ? The documentation
> does not agree with the source. reload sets MEM_NOTRAP_P on
> registers that are spilled to memory. However, writing to these
> MEMs can trap if we have a stack ov
Sorry I still did not follow. This is what I
understood. During Feedback optimization apart from
the -fprofile-generate, one needs to turn on
-fmove-loop-invariants. However this option is not
recognized by the gcc 3.4.4 or 3.4.3 compilers. What
am I missing?
-girish
--- Eric Christopher <[EMAIL
i think Peter's point is:
if mode(archive) == 444
if target == Darwin
Darwin ranlib will upgrade it to 644 anyway and succeed, and/or
use a temp file and rename(2)
else
ranlib isn't really needed anyway, so ignore the error
fi
else
ranlib should be used, and should succeed, but
On Thursday 01 September 2005 23:19, girish vaitheeswaran wrote:
> Sorry I still did not follow. This is what I
> understood. During Feedback optimization apart from
> the -fprofile-generate, one needs to turn on
> -fmove-loop-invariants.
You don't "need to". It just might help iff you are using
Gaurav Gautam, Noida wrote:
> I want to know, how enums are handled in gcc. How do we map an enum value to
> the corresponding integer size.
Look at start_enum and finish_enum in c-decl.c.
> What does the option -fshort-enums does. Plz explain me in detail.
Look at the code in start_num and fin
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:45:35PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 23:19, girish vaitheeswaran wrote:
> > Sorry I still did not follow. This is what I
> > understood. During Feedback optimization apart from
> > the -fprofile-generate, one needs to turn on
> > -fmove-lo
On Friday 02 September 2005 00:53, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Girish started this thread about problems he is seeing with GCC 3.4.3
> (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00866.html). Others of us
> chimed in about similar issues with later versions. Suggestions for
> avoiding the problems have
Fred Fish wrote:
> It appears that the ia64 port introduced the internal define
> MASK_GNU_AS that is used the same was as the historical MASK_GAS
> define. There was some discussion of this about 5 years ago as part
> of a larger discussion about possible user level changes.
Is there a reason wh
Hi,
While working on a project involing checking the internal (logic)
consistency of the C++ front-end, I came across the following code in
cp/parser.c:cp_parser_translation_unit():
while (true)
{
cp_parser_declaration_seq_opt (parser);
/* If there are no tokens left then all
Mike Ainley wrote:
> This web site is turning away Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.
Are you using a download accelerator? The gcc.gnu.org site refuses most
of them, as they cause load issues on our server. They are also popular
with spammers, who use them for spam bots. The message you are seeing
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Both branches of the if-statement contain an unconditional "break",
which implies that the apparant unbounded while-loop is executed only
once. If that reasoning is correct, why do we have the while-loop in
the first place?
Historical accident; a patch to remove it is
Andrew B. Lundgren wrote:
> Is there a macro I can ifdef on to check to see if I can use the v8plus
> instructions, otherwise use the existing spinlock implementation?
It looks like we have __sparc_v8__ and __sparc_v9__ but not a macro for
v8plus. If you need one, you may have to add it. See CPP
On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:16, James E Wilson wrote:
>
> Is there a reason why you are asking? Since target flag macros are
> target dependent, there is no particular need for them to be consistent
> across different targets.
I was checking to see exactly what differences configuring a cur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Pinski wrote:
|> Won't you then get warning messages on Darwin every time someone tries
|> to use the installed library (since the symbol table timestamp will be
|> older than the file timestamp)?
|
|
| It will not be a warning on darwin, it wi
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050901 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050901/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050901
You'll
Consider this sample code:
x = foo[i];
when pointers are larger than integers and size_t [*], we compute the
offset (i) and extend it to pointer size. However, there's no check
to see if a sign or zero extension should be used. If the offset is
unsigned (say, i is "unsigned int") it si
This is on:
Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
(auroralinux corona + rathann's and rzm's FC3 updates)
binutils-2.16.91.0.2-4.sparc
bison-1.875c-2.sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch
expect-5.42.1-1.sparc
gcc-3.4.3-22.sparc.sparc
gcc4-4.0.0-0.41.sparc.sparc
glibc-2
37 matches
Mail list logo
