DJ Delorie writes:
> On xstormy16, when structures with variable-length arrays are passed
> to functions (execute/20020412-1.c), it appears that they're passed by
> reference (based on examining the stack), despite the port not
> explicitly requesting that.
>
> This causes a mis-match in the va_a
Hi Ian, Hi Diego,
> Diego Novillo wrote:
--help=other?
That works. :-)
Actually, there already is a qualifier which will select
-fstack-protector, I had just forgotten about it:
% gcc --help=common | grep stack
-Wstack-protector Warn when not issuing stack smashing
protectio
Hello
Sorry, I hope it's not an offensive or boring topic.
Some of my friends asked me if it's true that gcc will be replaced by
other compilers on a few OS and what is the problem.
Any comment?
Best wishes
Eric Fisher
Hi there. The architecture I'm working is a 32 bit, word based
machine with a 16x16 -> 32 unsigned multiply. For some reason the
combine stage is converting the umulhisi3 into a mulsi3 and I'm not
sure how to track this down.
The test code is part of an alpha blend:
void blend(uint8_t* sb, uint
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:39:34 +1200
Michael Hope wrote:
> How does the combine stage work? It looks like it could get multiple
> potential matches for a set of RTLs. Does it use some type of costing
> function to pick between them? Can I tell combine that a umulhisi3 is
> cheaper than a mulsi3?
Thanks for the response Mukti. I think the options could be:
|-mlong-calls -mno-ep and ||-mno-prolog-function. Could please tell me
how to sepcify these options in makefile? Because I use gmake (in
Cygwin shell)
Thanks,
-Vijay
|
mukti jain wrote:
Can you experiment with optionmization op
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 16:33 +0800, Eric Fisher wrote:
> Sorry, I hope it's not an offensive or boring topic.
No, just off-topic. This list is for developing gcc, not plotting our
demise.
Cheers, Ben
Hello,
I noticed that the restrict doesn't work fully on 4.4.0 (used to work on
our port based on 4.3 branch). The problem is that tree optimizer can do a
lot of optimization regarding pointer, e.g., at -O3. The alias set property
is not propagated accordingly.
Is the following RTL expansion co
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I noticed that the restrict doesn't work fully on 4.4.0 (used to work on
> our port based on 4.3 branch). The problem is that tree optimizer can do a
> lot of optimization regarding pointer, e.g., at -O3. The alias set property
> is
Trying to work-around PR40269 (which doesn't happen
anymore on trunk, so you may close it) I've commented
out the dllexport/dllimport section:
#define BASE_DLLEXPORT /*__declspec(dllexport)*/
#define BASE_DLLIMPORT /*__declspec(dllimport)*/
Then the program compiled succ
Richard,
Yes, my original code does have restrict qualified decl:
void foo(int byte, char *a, char *b){
int * restrict dest = (int *)a;
int * restrict src = (int *)b;
for(int i = 0; i < byte/8; i++){
*dest++ = *src++;
}
}
The code I shown is produced by tree level compilation.
Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> Trying to work-around PR40269 (which doesn't happen
> anymore on trunk, so you may close it) I've commented
> out the dllexport/dllimport section:
>
> #define BASE_DLLEXPORT /*__declspec(dllexport)*/
> #define BASE_DLLIMPORT /*__declspec(dllimport)
This is the beta release of binutils 2.19.51.0.8 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2009 0603 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Richard,
> Yes, my original code does have restrict qualified decl:
>
> void foo(int byte, char *a, char *b){
> int * restrict dest = (int *)a;
> int * restrict src = (int *)b;
>
> for(int i = 0; i < byte/8; i++){
> *dest++ = *src++;
>
Richard,
Thanks. I tried your patch and the -fno-tree-ter, and none works. The problem
is that
decl = find_base_decl (TREE_OPERAND (inner, 0)); <--- Cannot find the
base declaration, so decl = 0
if (decl <-- won't be checked
&& POINTER_
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Bingfeng Mei
wrote:
> Richard,
> Thanks. I tried your patch and the -fno-tree-ter, and none works. The problem
> is that
>
> decl = find_base_decl (TREE_OPERAND (inner, 0)); <--- Cannot find the
> base declaration, so decl = 0
>
> if (decl
Hello,
Is there a way to get the REG for a given regno? I am building a
register renumbering map that is just a pair of unsigned int
, but I can't figure out how to get the REG for
new_regno without remembering a pointer to it myself. Is there an
easier/better way?
Ciao!
Steven
Steven Bosscher writes:
> Is there a way to get the REG for a given regno? I am building a
> register renumbering map that is just a pair of unsigned int
> , but I can't figure out how to get the REG for
> new_regno without remembering a pointer to it myself. Is there an
> easier/better way?
reg
Hi,
I'm doing a port of gcc 4.3.3 on a custom architecture and I'm having trouble
when initializing the bit fields of a structure.
The testcase is based on a modified gcc torture testcase, the natural
registers are 16 bits, and long long is defined to be 64 bit wide:
struct itmp
{
long long i
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> I'm doing a port of gcc 4.3.3 on a custom architecture and I'm having trouble
> when initializing the bit fields of a structure.
Ok, after further analysis, it looks like a genuine bug in gcc,
in store_bit_field_1(): when a field is
Stelian Pop writes:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
>
>> I'm doing a port of gcc 4.3.3 on a custom architecture and I'm having trouble
>> when initializing the bit fields of a structure.
>
> Ok, after further analysis, it looks like a genuine bug in gcc,
> in store
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:07:08PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > - unsigned int wordnum = (backwards ? nwords - i - 1 : i);
> > + unsigned int wordnum = (backwards
> > + ? GET_MODE_SIZE(fieldmode) / UNITS_PER_WORD
> > + - i - 1
Good morning everyone,
I have an interesting situation. In this bit of code below, extracted from
a simple testcase, I have a singly-linked list:
template class List
{
public:
List() : head(__null)
{
}
void insert (lis
Hi, all. I have a basic question about GENERIC trees.
I'm playing with writing a front end, and find the distinction between
BLOCK and BIND_EXPR to be somewhat confusing. In particular, I'm trying
to get a handle on how to represent a function in GENERIC form.
On the surface the texi docs and c
Hello!
Some time ago, there was a discussion about integrating LLVM and GCC
[1]. However, with plugin infrastructure in place, could LLVM be
plugged into GCC as an additional optimization plugin?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html
Uros.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
Some time ago, there was a discussion about integrating LLVM and GCC
[1]. However, with plugin infrastructure in place, could LLVM be
plugged into GCC as an additional optimization plugin?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.ht
Chris Lattner writes:
>> Some time ago, there was a discussion about integrating LLVM and GCC
>> [1]. However, with plugin infrastructure in place, could LLVM be
>> plugged into GCC as an additional optimization plugin?
>
> I'd love to see this, but I can't contribute to it directly. I think
> th
27 matches
Mail list logo
