Hello!
I am trying to implement the following insns for my back end: smulhssi3,
smulhshi3, smulhsqi3
According to [1], the operation should be equivalent to:
narrow op0, op1, op2;
op0 = (narrow) (((wide) op1 * (wide) op2) >> (N / 2 - 1));
...so I tried to write a corresponding matching p
On 2020-02-07 16:44, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:41:25PM +0100, m wrote:
...so I tried to write a corresponding matching pattern, like so:
(define_insn "smulhshi3"
[(set (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
(tru
Hello!
I am trying to get movmodecc (movsicc) going for my MRISC32 machine
description, but I am unable to get GCC to use my define_expand pattern.
I have tried different variants, but here is one example that I think
should work:
(define_expand "movsicc"
[(set (match_operand:SI 0
Hello gcc developers!
I am working on a new back end for my MRISC32 ISA [1], and I'm still very
new to gcc internals. I suspect that I will have more questions further
down the road, but let's start with this topic...
The MRISC32 ISA has instructions for setting a register based on the
outcome o
Den 2019-11-12 kl. 19:54, skrev Jeff Law:
On 11/12/19 11:29 AM, m wrote:
Hello gcc developers!
I am working on a new back end for my MRISC32 ISA [1], and I'm still very
new to gcc internals. I suspect that I will have more questions further
down the road, but let's start with
Hello!
I maintain a fork of GCC which adds support for my custom CPU ISA,
MRISC32 (the machine description can be found here:
https://github.com/mrisc32/gcc-mrisc32/tree/mbitsnbites/mrisc32/gcc/config/mrisc32
).
I recently discovered that scaled index addressing (i.e. MEM[base +
index * sca
I'm sorry about the messed up code formatting (I blame the WYSIWYG). I
hope the message gets through anyway (have a look at the Compiler
Explorer link - https://godbolt.org/z/drzfjsxf7 - it has all the code).
/Marcus
On 2022-06-22, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:52 PM m wrote:
Hello!
I maintain a fork of GCC which adds support for my custom CPU ISA,
MRISC32 (the machine description can be found here:
https://github.com/mrisc32/gcc-mrisc32/tree/mbitsnbites/mrisc32/gcc/config/mrisc32
Hi ,
I am trying to convert GIMPLE representation of a program to XML.
GIMPLE does not seem to lower instances of struct variables
E.g.
struct T{int i, int j}x;
f(){ x.j = 10}
appears as x.j = 10 inside the GIMPLE dump of the function body . Is
there some place from where I can get it in th
Thanks.
Can you point me to documentation / code where I can get more
information about these artificial tags ?
On 3/13/07, Diego Novillo < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Karthikeyan M wrote on 03/13/07 21:32:
> appears as x.j = 10 inside the GIMPLE dump of the function body . Is
>
Hi ,
I am trying to build GCC without bootstrapping
The config options I used were
-- prefix= --disable-bootstrap --disable-libada --enable-languages=c
I then did a
make
After that, I edited some code in c-parser.c , then, as suggested in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-02/msg00025.html , I t
when you run configure.
If you do use --disable-bootstrap, just run "make all-gcc".
I tried this, it is still using the compiled-compiler in stage2 and beyond
I added some code to c-parser.c and this crashes the built-compiler
when it tries to compile itself. I want the build to stop after
s
to use the precompiled gcc throughout
the build process ?
Regards,
Karthik
On 3/16/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Karthikeyan M wrote:
>> when you run configure.
>>
>> If you do use --disable-bootstrap, just run "make all-
Thanks for the information.
So, if I want to debug a bug in the cc1 code that causes target
library build to fail -
should I just use the cc1 that is generated in /gcc/ ?
Is there a better way of doing this, without going through a make that
builds some components successfully (cc1) and fails fo
What should I do if I want a list of all file-scope variables inside
my own pass ?
The file_scope variable is local to c-decl.c . Is there a reason why
the scope holding variables are local to c-decl.c ?
-
Karthik
Thanks.
Where exactly should I be looking?
Will the cgraph nodes also have global declarations that are never
used inside any
function .
On 3/20/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/20/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 March 2007 22:16, Kart
Are these macros not a part of 4.1.2 ?
I just picked up the tarball of the 4.1.2-core source.
Which release has this code ?
Thanks a lot.
On 3/20/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/20/07, Karthikeyan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks.
> Where exactly s
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Subversion_project_visualization.png
On 3/21/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/20/07, Karthikeyan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are these macros not a part of 4.1.2 ?
> I just picked up the tarball of the 4.1.2-core source.
>
> Which releas
Lese selbst:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/59427
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +, Alexander Yermolovich wrote:
> On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to
> enable DWARF64.
> I am trying to add a flag to Clang to enable DWARF64 generation.
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D90507
> In review David Blaikie point
Myers.
I found this idea interesting and really possible for me. But
I'm finding difficulty in proposing the the project as i never worked for
Open source soft wares.Would you Please help me with more description for
the idea or with some suggestion?
Thank you.
--
Chethan M
De
There's a very basic GCC front-end for LLVM-IR at
http://gcc-llvmir.googlecode.com, which has some support for
using clang to generate the LLVM IR. It might be usable as a starting
point for an OpenCL front-end, assuming that the OpenCL parser made it
into clang.
Matthew
...uz jsem podepsala, poslete to taky dal... www.nechciradar.cz
Lucka
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Dvorak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:04 AM
Subject: Fwd: On-line petice proti radaru
Původní zpráva
Od: Eva Vaňková
Komu: Evička Š.;
Fine.. as I said, what's a reasonable forum to discuss this on?
gnu.misc.discuss just doesn't cut it..
gnu-misc-discuss@ is the proper place, just ignore Terekhov.
Successful build/install of gcc-4.1.2 on Solaris10
The previous version of GCC used for the build was 3.4.6
I just built the compiler until I worked around the toolchain
problems: downrev gawk and missing gmp (watch 32 vs 64 bit) and mpfr.
Then a reconfig for everything built and installed in /usr
Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
"does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even
--- Ranjit Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M. Gabriele wrote:
> > Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
> > how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
> >
> > When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usu
--- Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ranjit Mathew wrote:
>
> >As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
> >be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
> >in the FAQ:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8
> >
> >in addition to the front-pag
--- Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M. Gabriele wrote:
>
> > >Yes. How do we go about it? :)
> >
> >
>
> The web pages can be found in the "wwwdocs" module in GCC cvs. Go here
> for details: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html
--- Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Gerald Pfeifer:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> For code.
> >> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> >> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> >
> > I have seen such stat
Hi,
The -fvisibility feature in GCC 4.0 is a really useful way of hiding all
non-public symbols in a dynamic shared object.
While I'm aware of a patch which backports this feature to GCC 3.4 (over at
nedprod.com), I was wondering whether there is a similar patch available for
GCC 3.3. I'm aware t
25
To: Gary M Mann
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is -fvisibility patch possible on GCC 3.3.x
"Gary M Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| The -fvisibility feature in GCC 4.0 is a really useful way of hiding all
| non-public symbols in a dynamic shared object.
|
| While
Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
karma not having GCC working on the GNU system.
Thanks.
The usual process is that you post them to the gcc-patches mailing
list for review. And if they are approved, you can commit then or
you can ask someone to commit them for you. As far as I can tell,
you have never posted the patches. At least, there is no sign of
that in the PR au
Please read the web page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
This assumes a stable access to the 'net so that such information can
be extracted when one is reading the documentation. Which isn't
always the case for everyone. URL's shouldn't point to important
information of this type in a
Please feel free to share with other groups as appropriate.
The form requires non-free software and Google malware. Please do not
recommend that people share such things on GNU project lists.
<#part type=message/rfc822 disposition=inline raw=t>
X-From-Line: r...@gnu.org Tue Feb 4 23:28:18 2020
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [209.51.188.10])
by localhost (mpop-1.0.28) with POP3
for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 00:28:18 +0100
Return-path:
Envelope-to: a...@g
rch 5, 2015 7:42 PM
To: Jeff Law
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor; Iyer, Balaji V; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tannenbaum, Barry M; H.J.
Lu; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus
implementation generally?
Hi!
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 0
Provenance : Courrier pour Windows 10
configure.guess:
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/ad3/gma/go-gcc-build/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /ad3/gma/go-build-work/gcc-4.6.0/configure
--prefix=/ad3/gm
However, I really implore you: by all means link statically to
everything else, but leave libc dynamically linked. I'm not aware
of any reason not to link libc dynamically, and not doing so leads
to a ton of problems.
Problems also arise if one uses functions that use NSS (eg. getXbyY
Please take this up with le...@gnu.org.
> a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
>
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
> � include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
> � lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
On 05/29/2009 03:11 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
(Resent, now actually subscribed to the list from the correct address)
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 14:28 +0530, M. Mohan Kumar wrote:
That's all true in the abstract, but modern gcc has been known to
abscond with variable location data even for v
On 11/19/2009 04:30 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:19 +0530, M. Mohan Kumar wrote:
Are VTA patches part of mainline gcc now? If not, where could we get the
VTA patches?
The VTA implementation is in mainline gcc now. There are also some
backports to gcc 4.4, like the gcc
Hi,
Based on the following conversations in binutils and gcc mailing
list, we understand that there is no support for VLE code for PowerPC
port.
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-05/msg00153.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2009-04/msg00201.html
We are planning to support the same in binu
Since it is possible to use the 0b prefix to specify a binary
number in GCC/C++, will there be any resistance to add %b format
specifier to the printf family format strings?
You can do that yourself by using the hook facility for printf, see
(libc) Customizing Printf in the GNU C library
If the dragonegg and/or LLVM copyright was assigned to the FSF, which
is a prerequisit for anything included in GCC and not what license the
program is under currently, then I'm quite sure that the GCC
maintainers would be more than happy to include both.
legal reasons. The default disclaimer is nonsense, it is hard to find an
employer willing to sign a sensible disclaimer, and even when you have a
nice employer it can still take months (years?) to get things through the
FSF.
If it takes a long time, please contact r...@gnu.org or as
My personal opinion is that this legal reason is a *huge*
bottleneck against external contributions. In particular, because
you need to deal with it *before* submitting any patch, which,
given the complexity (4MLOC) and growth rate (+30% in two years) of
GCC, means in practice that p
The big reason the copyright assignment. I never even bothered to
read it, but as I don't get anything in return there's no point.
Why should put obligaitons on myself, open myself up to even
unlikely liabilities, just so my patches can merged into the
official source distribution?
I have a script that allows me to do the following in a single step:
gccfarming cleanup
gccfarming bootstrap
gccfarming patch PATCH=mypatch.diff
gccfarming bootstrap
compare_tests clean.log mypatch.log
That seems useful, could you post a copy of it somewhere?
Today I happened across something that made me scratch my head.
Perhaps you can help me understand. Or maybe it's a bug.
ada.h contains the following preprocessor juju:
#ifdef __STDC__
#define CAT(A,B) A##B
#else
#define _ECHO(A) A
#define CAT(A,B) ECHO(A)B
#endif
For the non-__STDC__ case, w
However, a proportion of code written for Visual C++
makes use of
propriatery runtimes such as MFC, the runtime EULA of which 'currently'
prevents the use of MFC
based applications with a 'free' OS like ReactOS or GNU based toolchains...
And even if it were permitted, it wou
IANAL but the copyright assignment is probably necessary for the
FSF to have the rights to change the license at will (within the
limitations allowed by the copyright assignment). If there are many
copyright holders, like for say the linux kernel, a change of
license requires the app
> Not much can be done to either of those, the copyright assignments are
> necessary to keep GCC legally safe.
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need o
The FSF copyright assignments grant you back ultimate rights to use
it in anyway you please.
> Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some
> public domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part
> of a FSF project. Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU
> project with a GPL license, configure scripts, a cute acronym and
> all that stuff. I sai
>You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
>incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
>copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing
nothing to reduce anyone's ability to sue me, I could
> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
> software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE")
the software and nothing else.
In case of GCC, you have the explicit permission to
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
That risk always exists; some level of trust has to exist somewhere.
It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
copyright needs to be assigned (AFAIK) is to change the license.
This is not the only
>Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
>which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
>assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be
>"legally safe"?
>
> I do not know what high-profile projects you are refering t
> And how are potential contributors supposed to know this?
They're really not. The fundamental problem here is that this area of
the law is not only very complicated, but is really all guesswork
since there are few, if any, relevant cases. Moreover, this is an
area of the law whe
> That is more or less what a potentional contributor gets via
> email when submitting a patch. I don't see how a web form would
> make things different.
True, but I think it would make a significant difference if the web
form could be filled out online without requiring a piece of
As for flexible, it seems clear that the current form is not
sufficiently personalized, which makes it more difficult to get it
signed by an employer.
If you need something specific, you should contact le...@gnu.org.
They are quite flexible, I do not know where people got the idea that
th
People will always find reasons to complain, but most people (and
companies) seem to be happy with how the copyright assignments look
today.
1) The back-and-forth is too much for casual contributors. If it is
more effort to do the legal work than to submit the first patch,
then they will never submit any patch at all.
Please do not exaggerate, if people have time for threads like these,
then they have time to send a short emai
Not sure where to send this, who is responsible for the mail server
for gcc.gnu.org?
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Subject: [gnu.org #572859] [gcc-bugs-h...@gcc.gnu.org: ezmlm warning]
From: "Ward Vandewege via RT"
To: a...@gnu.org
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:28:41 -0400
> [...@gnu.o
I suggest you raise this with lice...@gnu.org.
> Therefore, if I don't have an update "soon" (within a week or two), I'd
> suggest that we operate under the assumption that it will not be
> possible to combine GFDL manuals and GPL code in the near future.
I think it should be possible, Emacs does something similar I think.
However
Hello,
I'm working on a new gcc target and trying to implement call_value.
When compiling (-O0 -S) the following c code :
int f1(int a, int b)
{
int tmp = a + b;
return tmp;
}
void main()
{
int a = 10;
int b = 20;
int c;
c = f1(a,b);
}
I get the followi
Hello all, hello Richard and thank you for your help.
On Wed, 30.06.2010 08:57, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 05:06 AM, M. -Eqbal Maraqa wrote:
> > f1.c:5:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
> > (insn 12 11 13 3 f1.c:4
> >(set (mem/c/i:SI (reg/f:SI 23 [ D
Please move such unconstructive arguments elsewhere.
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals,
> > one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other
> > containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a
> > book, the generated part would just appear as an appendix to
> > the manual, it's "
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply
that GCC should have an "options manual" separate from the user's
manual.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options for
various archit
> I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
> for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
> technical sense to have a "Invoking GCC" manual.
And what about libstdc++ API docs, w
>You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
>no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
>
> When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn
> but rightly so.
>
> I don't see what the problem is with two manuals, from a users
f: 6a 0d push $0xd
111: e8 fc ff ff ff call 112
116: 83 c4 10add$0x10,%esp
119: c9 leave
11a: c3 ret
-
--
Rodney M. Bates
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Rodney M. Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The following example C code and disassembly is compiled by gcc 3.4.3,
for i686. It uses two different invariants for what the value of
a static link is. Everywhere inside P, static link values are
Well, I agree with what you said about your example, but it's not what
I am meaning. See below.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Rodney M. Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't understand this. A pointer to anywhere in an activation record
(or even outside it, if
This is repost of my slightly earlier post, with a critical and
confusing misstatement corrected.
Well, I agree with what you said about your example, but it's not what
I am meaning. See below.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Rodney M. Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I
Is there a reason why both config/gnu.h and config/i386/gnu.h don't
include copyright notices or even the license they are under. Does
that mean they are in the public domain or did someone mess up when
contributing them?
They are (or were) non-trivial enough not to require a copyrigh
They are (or were) non-trivial enough not to require a copyright
notice.
I obviously mean that they were _trivial_ enough not to require a
copyright notice.
OK, Thanks for the information. Just in case, does anybody already
have it in their head roughly where in gcc code this decision is made?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Rodney M. Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When executing in foo, the frame pointer will point to a f
me of what I've written may be useful
as GCC considers how to build long-term robust plans to assure that the
copyleft of GCC is upheld for the long-term.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at Software Freed
party software any porting
effort or contribution should probably go through the upstream LLVM project to
avoid forking.
Don't let that stop you from developing a port though.
--
Stephen M. Webb
Hi
I think I found libstdc++ bug and I tried to report to Bugzilla but "user
account creation has been restricted".
So I'm going to report it here in hope that someone with a account could report
it to Bugzilla if they seem it fit.
Using gcc 13.2 with -std=c++23 code below (https://godbolt.org
- Have them distributed (automake's default). This means that
they will be build in the srcdir, not in the builddir: of
course, this only affects the maintainer, since for a user that
builds the package from a tarball those files should *not* be
rebuilt, hence ther
Hello,
I have substantially completed an extension that would allow dumps to be
emitted as XML. I would like to contribute it to the FSF for inclusion in
the GCC distribution. Please let me know if there is interest in this.
Thanks,
Brian M. Ames
iding whether to complain.
ps.
I am always on he look out for opportunities to run experiments
using experienced developers. Does anybody have any suggestions
for conferences I might approach?
--
Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667
Knowledge Softwar
Joern ,
You could try using softfloat:
http://www.jhauser.us/arithmetic/SoftFloat.html
--
Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667
Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applications Standards Conformance Testinghttp
> I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on the
> same machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and
> "git.gcc.gnu.org" would allow to split the load between machines
> (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org" are the same
> machines originally).
>> I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on
>> the same machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org"
>> and "git.gcc.gnu.org" would allow to split the load between
>> machines (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org"
>> are the same
this
release without any success. How do I find this information about a
given release?
Thanks,
--
Paul M. Dubuc
Andrew Haley wrote:
Paul M. Dubuc wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
GCC 4.2.4 has been released.
GCC 4.2.4 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in
GCC 4.2.3 relative to previous GCC releases. This release is
available from the FTP servers listed at:
http
Andrew Haley wrote:
Paul M. Dubuc wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Paul M. Dubuc wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
GCC 4.2.4 has been released.
GCC 4.2.4 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in
GCC 4.2.3 relative to previous GCC releases. This release
Hi All,
I am getting "out of memory" strings error log of our product. It
seems that error message "out of memory" doesn't have our common error
format.
We suspect that GCC library libstdc++.a is giving this error code.
#strings libstdc++.a | egrep "out of memory"
out of memory
Can you please
> Any chance of moving to launchpad.net?
And launchpad.net forces everyone else to remember a new username
and password.
Launchpad is also non-free software.
Hello all,
Several years ago in the gcc 3.3 time frame I looked into building cross
compilers using the current versions of gcc, glibc etc. for a number of
different systems. I quickly found that it was a quagmire. I inquired
of this list at that time and was told that the glibc hack was
pr
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
