To trySince you set up your.
Hi,
I'm developing a gcc based compiler and in a certain scenario I get the
following reload crash:
"error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'AB_REGS'"
I looked into it and it looks like it happens when all the AB_REGS registers
are taken as function arguments, and the prefered class
Hi,
"J. Finch" wrote on 10.01.2008 15:23:56:
>
> on the issue as stated in the subject regarding x86_64-pc-mingw64, I
> have downloaded MS debugger as suggested by FX, and I attach the
> logs where command "p" is stepping.
>
> fortran Program, c.f90, for test, one statement only
> [program beg
>
> This looks fine. What is the call stack looks like? And how does the
> function calling ntdll looks like?
> I think, you should step on an "int 3". Because you simply debug the
> exception handling routine itself.
>
Hi, Kai:
I attach the stack in the following:
C:\temp\fortran>cdb gfo
Hi,
stack before and after segmentation fault is as:
..
..
ntdll!KiUserApcDispatcher+0x15:
`77ef30a5 488bcc mov rcx,rsp
0:000> p
ntdll!KiUserApcDispatcher+0x18:
`77ef30a8 b201mov dl,1
0:000> k
Child-SP RetAddr Call Site
0
Hi,
"J. Finch" wrote on 10.01.2008 16:31:38:
Thank you very much for your dumps, but you should use on runtime the
option '-dH' option to enforce that you reach the point, where the
exception is caused.
> stack before and after segmentation fault is as:
>
>
> ..
> ..
> ntdll!KiUserAp
Hi all,
I'm going on brutalizing GIMPLE code to make it more suitable for CIL emition in
the CLI be/fe branch and I've stumbled across something which looks really weird.
When working with types I always assumed that if 't' is a RECORD_TYPE,
UNION_TYPE or QUAL_UNION_TYPE then calling DECL_FIEL
On 10 January 2008 16:12, Gabriele SVELTO wrote:
> int
> main()
> {
>struct try
>{
> FLOAT x, y;
> unsigned unord : 1;
> unsigned lt : 1;
> unsigned le : 1;
> unsigned gt : 1;
> unsigned ge : 1;
> unsigned lg : 1;
>};
>
>static struct try const d
Hi!
Am 09.01.2008 um 23:54 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
Boris Boesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm trying to allocate a scratch register: write immediate constant
into scratch register r, write register r into memory
...
What is wrong with the code above?
There is nothing wrong with t
Life can be a different thing for you now!
Why wait?!WE now happy to introduce to you a tatally different option to
acquire your qualification online!Whatever your specialization is now obtaining
your diploma degree becomes a reality.
Lot's of people worldwide appreciated this unique opportunit
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 January 2008 16:12, Gabriele SVELTO wrote:
> [snip]
>
A new type still named 'struct try' is used in the COMPONENT_REFs of
this function but this type has a different TYPE_UID from the 'struct try'
used in main. Since the original type was local to main this makes sense.
> Yes, I can remember that constraints in a mov-insn can not be
> resolved by other/additional mov-insns.
I think you're doing this the wrong way. You don't have a i->m mov
instruction, so why are you pretending you do?
Why aren't you doing this the same way as pretty much every other target?
On 10 January 2008 16:40, Gabriele SVELTO wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 10 January 2008 16:12, Gabriele SVELTO wrote:
>>
> > [snip]
> >
>>> A new type still named 'struct try' is used in the COMPONENT_REFs of
>>> this function but this type has a different TYPE_UID from the 'struct try'
>>> u
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 January 2008 16:40, Gabriele SVELTO wrote:
Yes, you're completely correct about the artificial initialiser function; I
thought the compiler might output it as a nested function, but I don't know
without checking. (But I've been working on gcc for only ~7 years so I migh
> "Gabriele" == Gabriele SVELTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gabriele> Good to know, TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT () is exactly what I was
Gabriele> looking for, unfortunately it's description in tree.def
Gabriele> isn't exactly crystal clear :P Thank you very much
This would be a great opportunity to im
Hi, Kai,
This is what you want, with -dH. If you need further information, please let me
know. Finch.
.
.
(8b8.8bc): Break instruction exception - code 8003 (first chance)
*** ERROR: Symbol file could not be found. Defaulted to export symbols for
ntdll.dll -
ntdll!DbgB
The main reason it is not hosted on the gcc servers is that it would
require installation of ruby and ruby on rails.
This has not been brought up on overseers before, and i do not know
how people would feel about it.
On Jan 10, 2008 2:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> As such, I'd like to get a general indication from the greater GCC> community
> as to this plan. Does this document seem like a good idea?
> (Previously, we've left this kind of document to the user community.
> Often the passage of time has not been pa
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several
> existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code.
>
> Is this sentence okay? I'm not a native speaker, so I might miss a
> nuance here.
No, it's
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several
> > existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code.
> >
> > Is this sentence okay?
On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>
>>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several
>>> existing warning flags new ability to spot pro
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:10:02PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >>
> >>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastruct
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:38 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] This macro must never return zero, even if a register
> +cannot hold the requested mode - indicate that with HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK
> +and/or CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS instead.
I think that HARD_REGNO_NREGS should not be returnin
IIRC, the bug happened building either libgcc or newlib. If you want
to revert my latest patch in a local source tree and just try a build,
it's likely to show you an example ;-)
The GCC Steering Committee has appointed Jakub Jelinek, Joseph Myers,
and Richard Guenther to help with GCC Release Management.
It's a big job, and I haven't had as much time for it recently as I had
in the past. Jakub, Joseph, and Richard all have tremendous GCC
experience, and I think that havi
> > Yes, I know beginners get confused by and/or precedence. But
> > *every* language that I know of that has operator precedence places
> > 'and' before 'or'.
>
> FWIW, Bourne shell doesn't, && and || have equal precedence there.
> That's a bit off-topic though, as it's not an argument against yo
26 matches
Mail list logo
