> I have a problem using the shift operator, maybe a bug (ok, a bug or i'm
> wrong about shift operator)
You are wrong about the shift operator. This is a bug in your code, not a gcc
bug. Shift operators are only defined for non-negative shifts counts less
than the size of the value being shifte
> So... could someone elaborate on what it is I am doing that
> is so wrong? What is the successful recipe for using GCC
> 3.3.5 + 4.1.1 and/or binutils under Solaris?
libgcc_s.so is backwards compatible. The 3.3 compiled code should work fine
with the 4.1 libgcc.
It is not forwards compatible.
> Because gcc is the first step in bringing up a new system. Having
> complex sets of dependencies makes people's lives harder. I'm sure
> we've all had the unpleasant experience of trying to build something
> from the net only to discover that we had to build five other things
> first.
In my e
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 19:02, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Mark Shinwell wrote:
> > What do others think?
>
> My only concern is that we have tons of customers with tons of code
> and you don't have any and that you break their code. I don't have
> any idea if this would b
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 17:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Can a register be used more than once in an insn if one of those uses is
> an auto-modification? I've looked at this several times in the past and
> never come to a conclusion. doc/rtl.texi says:
We have a related problem on ARM. Th
> The competition is already starting to make progress in this area.
>
> We don't want to spend time in locks or spinning and we don't want to
> liter our code with such things, so, if we form areas that are fairly
> well isolated and independent and then have a manager, manage the
> compilation pr
> Let's just say, the CPU is doomed.
So you're building consensus for something that is doomed?
> > Seriously thought I don't really understand what sort of response
> > you're expecting.
>
> Just consensus building.
To build a consensus you have to have something for people to agree or
disagre
On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:46, Michael Eager wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Michael Eager wrote:
> >> Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
> >
> > Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
> > stack unwinding.
>
> It would seem that th
On Monday 13 November 2006 00:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:14PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > The code being unwound through (ie. with frame data) needs to be able to
> > say "I need routine X if __Unwind_Raise is used anywhere in this
> >
> Thanks for the report. I believe some of your issues can be addressed.
> I'll add what I can to my TODO list. However I don't know if anything
> will be done for the 4.1.x series given the restriction for regression
> fixes only. I guess it depends on your definition of "regression", these
> p
> Ideally, this macro would expand to three mov instructions and a ret.
> Is there anything I can do to help GCC along here? I'm using GCC 4.1.0
> with -O2.
>
> I won't bother to show bswap_32 here, which produces a real disaster!
> Think 47 instructions, for what should be 6.
Use gcc head, __buil
> when given the -fcompiler-probe flag, it should get an a string
> option with it. If this string is a (Unix) file path it indicate a
> Unix socket or FIFO; if it starts with a vertical pipe bar | it
> starts the command and communicate with it thru pipes. Typically the
> command is some
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 16:33, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> I am working on a ARM backend for LLVM. The problemis that llvm-gcc is
> currently based on gcc 4.0 and I would like to use the new EABI.
>
> I have started to back port the ABI from 4.1 to 4.0. The first attempt
> was to just copy the
> This all may just be a shakedown problem with MPFR, and maybe it will
> stabilize shortly. But it's disturbing that after one undistributed
> version became a requirement, we then very shortly stepped up to a new
> undistributed version. I think it should be obvious that if we
> require an exte
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 22:40, Phil Endecott wrote:
> Dear GCC Experts,
>
> I am trying to understand the subtleties of __attribute__((packed)). I
> have some code that works on x86, where unaligned accesses work, but
> fails on ARM where they do not.
>
> As far as I can see, if I declare a st
On Friday 15 December 2006 01:37, Josh Conner wrote:
> All -
>
> When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and build with:
>
> CFLAGS="-g -O0"
>
> The resultant compiler is built with the specified options. However, if
> I --enable-bootstrap, when I build with the same CFLAGS, these options
> ar
On Friday 15 December 2006 09:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Makefile.html
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
> >
> > I read that, could you please quote the part that documents the current
> > behavior.
>
> If you wish to use non-default GCC flags when c
On Monday 18 December 2006 01:15, Paul Schlie wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Rask Engelmann Lamberts wrote:
> >> I seem unable to get a QImode shift instruction from this code:
> >>
> >> unsigned char x;
> >>
> >> void qishifttest2 (unsigned int c)
> >> {
> >>x
On Monday 18 December 2006 17:53, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
> > C99 says:
> >
> > The integer promotions are performed on each of the operands. The
> > type of the result is
> > that of the promoted left operand. If the value of the right operand
> > is negative or is
> > greater t
> Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
> as long as result is the same as unoptimized one.
We have an option for that. It's called -O0.
Pretty much all optimization will change the behavior of your program. The
important distinction is whether that difference is observable in valid
progra
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:46, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
> > > as long as result is the same as unoptimized one.
> >
> > We have an option for that. It'
> > Actually they will with multi threaded program, since you can have a case
> > where it works and now it is broken because one thread has speed up so
> > much it writes to a variable which had a copy on another thread's stack.
>
> Why isn't that just a buggy program with wilful disregard for t
On Thursday 21 December 2006 02:38, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
> | > as long as result is the same as unoptimized one.
> |
> | We have an option for that. It's called -O0.
>
On Friday 22 December 2006 00:58, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > There are a lot of 100.00% safe optimizations which gcc
> > can do. Value range propagation for bitwise operations, for one
>
> Or this, absolutely typical C code. i386 arch can co
On Friday 22 December 2006 02:06, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> > On Friday 22 December 2006 00:58, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> >>> There are a lot of 100.00% safe optimizations which gcc
> &g
On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:27, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Andrija Radicevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > how could I find out from which patterns, in the md file, the 00.expand
> > file was generated (i.e. to map the patterns in the expand file with the
> > ones in the .md f
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 11:44, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:06:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > If you do encounter problems, please file a Bugzilla PR, and add me to
> > the CC: list for the issue. Please do not send me reports without first
> > filing a PR, as I am
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 01:26, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > What about PR28516, would it be acceptable for 4.1.2?
>
> There are two issues:
>
> (1) it's not marked as a 4.1 regression, let alone a regression from
> 4.1.x. Did this test case work with older versions of GCC
> My options code generations are more or less:
>
> 1) Code an interpreter
>
> 2) Build the parse tree in GCC's native format and let GCC generate
> the code
>
> 3) Generate annotated C and call GCC on that.
3b) Generate ISO C. Compile with $(CC).
4) Convert your internal (parse) trees
> My (embedded) development system is gcc-3.2.1 arm-elf. I don't really
> understand its value for sizeof(struct { short x }).
> sizeof s_sh 4
> sizeof short 2
This is a feature of the ARM ABI you are using. All structures are word
aligned (which implies being word sized).
Paul
> > 1. Is there a way to check for dependency b/w this two instructions.
> > 2. Any existing backend that has this type of design.
>
> gcc currently does a relatively crummy job of handling this type of
> VLIW architecture. You can describe the dependencies in the
> scheduler, but the scheduler wo
On Monday 05 March 2007 22:00, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Kate Minola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Option A. Use the bootstrap compiler to first build gmp and mpfr,
> > then build gcc.
> >
> > Option B. Build gcc without gmp and mpfr. Then use it to
> > build gmp and mpfr. Now rebuild gcc usi
> Which means using C90, which means no mixed declarations and code, no
> C++ comments, etc. Is there any way to compile at least, my files with
> c99 constructs?
> Or all gcc code should be built like this??
This is a feature. gcc can be bootstrapped using an arbitrary c90 compiler.
The warning
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Maybe, but I consider rejecti
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 19:21, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
> etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of
> stdint.h.
>
> Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
> with cross compilations
> @defmac FUNCTION_MODE
> An alias for the machine mode used for memory references to functions
> being called, in @code{call} RTL expressions. On most CISC machines,
> where an instruction can begin at any byte address, this should be
> @code{QImode}; on RISC machines, where all instructions ar
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 00:36, Scott Brooks wrote:
> When I use &__bss_start, &_end, in a shared library I get the addresses of
> the __bss_start and _end of the main application that has loaded the
> library.
>
> I would like to get the address of the bss/text segments of the shared
> library i
> How can I get the build scripts to use the precompiled gcc throughout
> the build process ?
Short answer is you can't. The newly build gcc is always used to build the
target libraries[1].
Paul
[1] Except when building a Canadian cross, in which case you're expected to
have a build->target cr
> Exactly. I'm viewing the mission statement as the moral equivalent of a
> constitution -- the highest guidelines that you fall back on when
> everything else fails. Your first paragraph above indicates that you view
> it similarly. But it's currently so vague that I don't imagine it's much
> u
On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:20, Mayank Kumar wrote:
> I work for Microsoft SFU(services for unix) group and I am currently
> investigating this fPIC issue for gcc 3.3 which is available with sfu 3.5.
gcc3.3 is really quite old, and hasn't been maintained for quite some time.
You're unlikely to ge
On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:24, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > 1. We can go to 9-bit codes. They're slower, independent of checking.
> > Maybe we can make bitfields go faster, and get some of that back.
>
> I think it worth understanding why this is. One or even two instructions
> should be lost in t
> This logic works fine - except when gcc tells me that this sibcall
> function is a leaf, despite the fact that it calls out to another function
> that probably clobbers the call_used regs.
A leaf function is one that doesn't make any function calls. Technically
speaking, a sibcall isn't reall
> I am working on Shared flat file support for uClinux (No MMU ARM ).The
> gcc version
> I am using is 2.95 and 3.4.0.Theory of operation is similar to that
You really need to be using the latest gcc (ie. svn trunk, aka 4.3) before we
can help you.
gcc also has a uclinux target. You should be us
On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
> > Hi
> > I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
> > compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
> > and makes extensive use of the stl libr
On Saturday 07 April 2007 15:28, Dave Korn wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm actively working on a patch for enhancement request PR14331, which is
> still currently in 'NEW' state. Would some kindly admin like to assign it
> to me?
Didn't you get bugzilla super-powers with your write after approva
On Thursday 12 April 2007 14:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:16 +0300, Kai Ruottu wrote:
> > Things seem to be that the '-mcpu=ep9312 -mhard-float' combination will
> > crash the GCC build in both gcc-4.1.2 and gcc-4.2.0-20070316 prerelease
> > like :
>
> -mhard-float doesn't
> However, bundling them all up into big patches would probably run over the
> size limit for "small patches that don't require paperwork".
The size limit for non-copyrightable changes is accumulative. ie. it applies
the same whether changes are submitted one by one or all at once.
Paul
On Thursday 12 April 2007 16:35, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12 April 2007 16:31, Paul Brook wrote:
> >> However, bundling them all up into big patches would probably run over
> >> the size limit for "small patches that don't require paperwork".
> >
> >
On Saturday 14 April 2007 20:32, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 12:23:24PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On 4/14/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >__builtin_ia32_vec_set_v2di is
> > >
> > >v2di __builtin_ia32_vec_set_v2di (v2di, long long, const int)
> >
> > v2di and m128i a
> No, the issue is that the -Os option is *documented* to *only* include
> those optimizations that are known to not increase the code size.
Where exactly is the documented? My documentation says It
enables "optimisations that do not *typically* increase code size" (emphasis
mine).
Many optim
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 00:19, FX Coudert wrote:
> Someone reported on bug on a trivial statically-linked Fortran progam
> with OpenMP and a I/O operation. I can reproduce the segfault, which
> happens at:
>...
> Andrew suggested on bugzilla that this might be a GLIBC issue (I use
> glibc-2.4 fr
> > .file ""
> > foo.global _ffs
>
> Is this really a reference? It just looks like a declaration. A
> typical ELF assembler will not generate an undefined symbol merely
> because it sees a .global pseudo-op.
I think gas 2.17 counts as a "typical ELF assembler". It does create und
> > There was a patch to the c++ frontend recently to avoid a similar problem
> > with EH personality routines.
>
> Couldn't see what you're referring to in cp/ChangeLog straight away, have
> you got a pointer/rough date/search term I can use?
Ah, it wasn't actually the c++ forntend:
2007-03-19
> [Paul]:
> Is this problem present also in CSL-3.4.x branch?
That depends which target you are using. It Richard's analysis is correct this
is an ABI limitation rather than a compiler problem.
The "old" arm-none-elf and arm-linux targets still use SJLJ exceptions. They
will probably never be
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 15:29, Petko Manolov wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Paul Brook wrote:
> > The "old" arm-none-elf and arm-linux targets still use SJLJ exceptions.
> > They will probably never be "fixed" as this would involve an ABI change.
>
> Didn&#
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 02:37, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> After trying to build the fortran compiler I'm convinced that at a cut
> down version of the multi precision libraries it requires should be
> included
> in to the compiler tree. The reasons are as follows:
>
> 1. They should be there for re
> (a) the numbers reported by the "time" command,
real3m52.604s
user3m15.490s
sys 0m29.550s
> (b) what sort of machine this is and how old
hp-pa 712/80. At least 7 years only, probably more. This machine takes many
hours to bootstrap gcc.
> (c) whether or not you would be willing t
> - Are trampolines used for anything else but nested functions
> in C? I believe they are used by Ada.
<...>
> My personal uninformed opinion is that trampolines cause more trouble
> than they are worth.
Ada, Fortran and Pascal all require nested functions.
Paul
On Saturday 19 March 2005 07:51, Carl van_Schaik wrote:
> I'm running into a bug with gcc 3.4.3:
>
> I've got syscall code for user-land to our kernel that trashes r14/lr.
> The code is inlined, and works find in ARM mode. When compiling in thumb,
> gcc does not preserve lr. With an older gcc 3.3.3
On Sunday 20 March 2005 01:58, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Sorry, I'm confused; can you give me an example of legal C
> > expression specifying an indirect jump to an arbitrary location
> > within a function?
>
> It is possible in GNU C at least:
>
> int fo
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 13:00, Harry Goulding wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm developing a front end for a simple programming language as part of a
> project.
>
> I have looked through the GCC Internals Manual, the Toy front end language
> and Treelang.
>
> I can't seem to find any info regarding an in
On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:46, Josh Conner wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if there are plans to incorporate the ARM EABI
> exception handling (a la CSL) into the mainline gcc ARM port?
Yes. It's on our (CodeSourcery's) list of things to do.
Paul
On Thursday 07 April 2005 18:54, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Geert Bosch wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2005, at 13:27, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > >Try -fdump-parse-tree. You've given more digits in y than
> > >its precision. This is permitted by the standard. It appears
> >
On Friday 15 April 2005 13:33, Petar Penchev wrote:
> Hello All,
> The CPU ,I am porting GCC to , has PUSH instruction for half-word (byte)
> and PUSH instruction for word as well.
> GCC is using them well, until I was told to add a command-line option
> which allows GCC to align on word.
> It has
On Friday 15 April 2005 18:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-04-14 10:35:06 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > All that said, C99 has to control just about anything you
> > could want about the fpu.
>
> It is not possible to change the rounding precision with .
That's because it's an x86/m68k
On Saturday 16 April 2005 19:32, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hi!
>
> gfortran does not support -Werror it seems.
It should, this is a bug.
> What do I need to put in dg-options to make a testcase fail, if there is
> any warning?
Doesn't dejagnu do this anyway? Ie. any unexpected errors or warnings
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 13:15, Biagio Lucini wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2005 21.16, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote:
> > > we have to extend the gfortran internal representation also
> >
> > Yes, initially most of the effort will be in C/C+
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:40, Biagio Lucini wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 May 2005 13.34, Paul Brook wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 May 2005 13:15, Biagio Lucini wrote
> >
> > > I have understood that at the moment some misbehaviour of the
> > > front-end prevents it,
ir dependency list.
>
> varray.h includes machmode.h, system.h, coretypes.h, and tm.h, so
> Makefile.in should define and use VARRAY_H, right?
Already one step ahead of you :-)
2005-05-07 Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile.in: Fix dependencies.
(GCOV_IO_H, VARRAY_H): Set.
On Monday 09 May 2005 03:55, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:03:23AM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > On Monday 09 May 2005 02:26, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > > > Howdy,
> > > >
&
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 20:27, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> On 2005-05-17, at 11:29, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 01:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> No, I just don't build gfortran as a cross. There are many reasons
> >> why this is a bad idea anyway.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> The depend
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 21:33, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:05:34 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > No hacks needed; you just have to embrace reality.
>
> The reality is that 95% of computers run Windows which is very good at
> supporting developers who distribute binaries in this way. On
On Friday 20 May 2005 16:05, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been waiting for > 15 minutes for 'jules' to unlock the library:
> how is this even possible? Are there operations taking *so* much time?
Tagging a branch.
See previous discussions about moving to Subversion. I believe this is
cu
On Thursday 26 May 2005 14:25, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>May I be so bold as to suggest that -funsafe-math-optimizations be
> >>reduced in scope to perform exactly what it's name implies:
> >>transformations that may slightly alter the meanding of c
> Lets try to get a copy of gcc. Firstly I see something in the top-left
> marked "releases". I click on it. It doesn't mention 4.0,
Fair point. This needs fixing.
> and despite reasonable attempts I see no sign of code.
Huh? The first paragraph on that page is
"Source code for GCC releases ma
On Thursday 30 June 2005 04:24, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Ada is now broken on the mainline by:
> 2005-06-28 Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Makefile.in: Set and use UNWIND_H. Install as unwind.h.
> * c-decl.c (finish_decl): Call default_init_unw
On Sunday 03 July 2005 19:21, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.0.1 RC3 is now available here:
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050702/
>
> With luck, this will be the last 4.0.1 release candidate.
>
> Please do download tarballs from the above URL and confirm that they
> work OK on y
On Monday 11 July 2005 15:58, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> Also, does anyone know what the required behaviour for Fortran integers is
> on overflow?
Section 7.1.7 "Evaluation of operation"
"The evaluation of any numeric operation whose result is not defined by the
arithmetic used by the processo
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 15:35, Canqun Yang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> Function inlining for FORTRAN programs always fails.
Not entirely true. Inlining of contained procedures works fine (or it did last
time I checked). This should include inlining of siblings within a module.
> If no one engages in
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 16:52, Joost VandeVondele wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think Paul's example is completely correct, I've created PR22571
> with some more info.
Ah, this makes thing somewhat simpler. For some reason I though my example was
legal.
I think this makes it possible to implement m
> > The biggest problem is type consistency and aliasing. Consider the
> > following
>
> I have several FORTRAN 77 programs. After inlining the small functions in
> them by hand, they made a great performance improvements. So I need a trial
> implementation of function inlining to verify the effect
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 17:33, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Hi
> I am trying to insert a function call "foo" inside the tree list.
>
>
> Inside this particular loop
> for (bsi = bsi_start (bb); !bsi_end_p (bsi); bsi_next (&bsi))
> {
>
> //if a particular condition i
> A possible way to solve this problem is to add a single-bit flag to
> INTEGER_TYPE nodes that indicates whether this is actually a character
> type. Then dwarf2out.c could just check the flag to determine what
> debug info to emit. It looks like we have a number of flag bits that
> aren't being
> But secondly, why make that restriction at all? Suppose I have a function
> to which a language semantics requires passing by reference. Now suppose
> the operand is "a + b". Why not just make an ADDR_EXPR of the PLUS_EXPR?
>
> Sure, the front end *could* make a temporary, but the gimplifier h
> But only where the semantics are well defined. I can think of several
> different possible semantics for talking the address of arbitrary
> things.
>
> The counter-argument is that it can used when the semantics need *not* be
> well-defined, in other words, where you're saying you do
On Friday 09 September 2005 02:51, Eric Fisher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone give me some suggestions about floating point implemention.
> My new target doesn't have floating point register. But must I implement
> the floating point operantion? Libgcc always fails on _floatdifi.o. But how
> can I
On Thursday 15 September 2005 10:59, Eric Fisher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When building Libgcc with new porting gcc, _floatdidf.o failed for
> undefined symbol
> _floatsidf. I've been told that _floatsidf is in fpbit.c as
> _si_to_df.o. Then I modified the libgcc.mk and firstly build fpbit.
> But _pack_
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:13, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org
arm-none-elf results look good:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00780.html
Paul
> GCC 4.0.2 RC2 is now available here
Sill ok on arm-none-elf:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00938.html
Paul
On Thursday 22 September 2005 19:31, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 12:50:39PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > of course, but the behavior of a compiler with a special implementation
> > dependent switch is not specified by the standard! Switches can do any
> > amount of violence
On Saturday 24 September 2005 23:35, Greg McGary wrote:
> I'm working with a machine that has a memory-increment insn. It's a
> network-processor performance hack that allows no-latency accumulation
> of statistical counters. The insn sends the increment and address to
> the memory controller whi
On Saturday 24 September 2005 23:52, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Saturday 24 September 2005 23:35, Greg McGary wrote:
> > I'm working with a machine that has a memory-increment insn. It's a
> > network-processor performance hack that allows no-latency accumulation
> >
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 18:44, Steve Kargl wrote:
> So, I finally get a copy of mainline, yesterday. As user
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], I did
>
> cd ~/gcc
> svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/trunk
>
> Now, I want to update this to the latest sources. The wiki
> says "svn update" works exact
On Friday 14 October 2005 07:49, Yaroslav Karulin wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I have two files: foo.c and main.c. foo.c is compiled with RVTC 2.2
> compiler. main.c is compiled with gcc compiler (configured with
> --target=arm-elf). I cannot link them together using gcc linker.
>But it's possible
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 23:34, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anyone have advice on how to get subversion working through a corporate
> > firewall.
>
> In case it helps, any connection to port 443 on
> sshproxy.sourceware.org is forwarded to port 22 on
> s
On Thursday 20 October 2005 18:34, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Ideally, once this discussion is over, some kind subversion expert
> will update the wiki to contain the answers to the questions raised on this
> thread.
>
> Ideally once this discussion is over, the information will be in real
> docu
> >paolo:~/test-svn> svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/trunk
> >Enter passphrase for RSA key '[EMAIL PROTECTED]':
> >Enter passphrase for RSA key '[EMAIL PROTECTED]':
>
> This is *totally* crazy: if I enter the password *3* times, then it works!
>
> If someone is curious and wants more deb
On Friday 21 October 2005 15:59, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> >See previous threads about how svn makes multiple connections to the
> > server, each requiring authorization.
>
> Argh! I glanced briefly over those threads...
>
> While you are at it, are y
> >See previous threads about how svn makes multiple connections to the
> > server, each requiring authorization.
>
> I guess it is the SSH connection caching thing?!? I tought it was for
> performance not also for finger saving... ;)
I think it's configurable via the ControlMaster option. The def
> When compiling for 64bit, there is an extra cast:
> In the 64bit case however, the vectorizer dumps show that the
> access-function returned for the index to array b is much more
> compilcated
> - the dataref analyzer doesn't seem to be able to extract the
> evoluti
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
