Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can somebody familiar with inline assembly guess whether the source
> or the compiler are wrong here?
>
> --- snip ---
> inline unsigned int
> cia_bwx_ioread8(void *a)
> {
> return ({ unsigned char __kir; __asm__("ldbu %0,%1" : "=r"(__kir) :
> "m"(*(volat
Daniel Berlin,您好！
given
int a1,a2,a3,a4;
a1 = 1 ;
a2 = 2 ;
a3 = 3 ;
a4 = 4 ;
foo(a1+a2,a3+a4);
I want get foo function first argument stmt tree--(a1+a2). then look
the argument stmt tree OPERAND to find a1 and a2 variable.
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
As far as reviewing/applying/approving patches for wwwdocs is concerned,
and implementing suggestions sent to the GCC lists, I'm committed to do
that, and do so within one "online day" if possible in any way.
I'd like to applaud you for that effort.
However, I just don't
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:55:59PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> >I don't know who wants to look at this problem, but I've
> >run into
> >
> >kargl[217] make
> >gfc41 -O -march=athlon -pipe -c -I/home/kargl/work/41/mod FM.f90
> >FM.f90: In fu
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:55:59PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> >I don't know who wants to look at this problem, but I've
> >run into
> >
> >kargl[217] make
> >gfc41 -O -march=athlon -pipe -c -I/home/kargl/work/41/mod FM.f90
> >FM.f90: In fu
On Jul 10, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
I don't know who wants to look at this problem, but I've
run into
kargl[217] make
gfc41 -O -march=athlon -pipe -c -I/home/kargl/work/41/mod FM.f90
FM.f90: In function 'fm_abs':
FM.f90:35812: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
'
> In fact, i had someone recently send me a *104 page PDF file* on how
> RTL really works organized in a way that most developers would
> probably find better.
So share it with the masses, put it in the wiki.
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know who wants to look at this problem, but I've
run into
kargl[217] make
gfc41 -O -march=athlon -pipe -c -I/home/kargl/work/41/mod FM.f90
FM.f90: In function 'fm_abs':
FM.f90:35812: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'declaration' (var_decl) in build_array_t
Dan Kegel wrote:
sparc-gcc-4.1-20050709-glibc-2.3.2:
arch/sparc/kernel/process.c:204: internal compiler error: in
compare_values, at tree-vrp.c:445
Filed as
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR22398
--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See
http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
Falk Hueffner wrote:
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Likewise, compiling that version of gcc for alpha
dies while building the linux kernel, but for a different reason:
{standard input}:496: Error: macro requires $at register while noat in effect
make[1]: *** [arch/alpha/kernel/core_cia
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > 3. We should seriously consider writing and maintaining different guides
| > and references than the ones we have.
|
| Nobody won't object to that, I guess.
Indeed.
-- Gaby
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > However, I just don't have the bandwidth to dig through Wiki and port
| > things over, and it's not exactly an efficient nor motivating modus
| > operandi either.
| I would submit them from the wiki if i felt people found more use for it
| in
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
|
| Gaby> That is a question I would have loved answered did I endorse its
| Gaby> predicate.
|
| Then by all means continue to use the existing docs in your world
| and let others create more useful documentation
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:50 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> > a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> > should find useful*.
>
> I'm sure you are aware of the
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> HowToPrepareATestcase was submitted but never reviewed which is why it
> moved to the wiki.
It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg0032
On Jul 10, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a
parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for p
On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:43, Richard Kenner wrote:
> This happens because
> 1. People don't want to write texinfo,
>
> People don't like to write comments either, but I don't think most people
> would suggest we stop requiring comments.
>
> The documentation style of the GNU project is te
On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:14, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The issue is not complaining that people do useful things. Rather,
> whether the updated and and more useful documentation of GCC shall be
> moved outside GCC main docuementation sources.
This is just a matter of where a contributor wants to
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
> current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
> because they are out of date, but because they don't give them
> information on what they really want to know.
I
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> should find useful*.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for
gcc/doc/*.texi as such. The main
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
Gaby> That is a question I would have loved answered did I endorse its
Gaby> predicate.
Then by all means continue to use the existing docs in your world
and let others create more useful documentation for developers in our
world, which appears to be on a d
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| These are all related causes of the effect that our documentation and
| the process behind it hasn't worked for as long as i've been hacking gcc
| (5 or 6 years now). Everyone seems to pretend "oh, it's just the damn
| lazy developers fault, they
> It appears to me that you're relating unrelated effects and causes.
Not really.
People don't contribute to the current docs for the following main
reasons, AFAICT and have heard from people, *in order of number of
complaints i've heard from people*:
1. They don't want to send continual incompl
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 15:49 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> It looks like we are now giving type tags to global that didn't use to
> have type tags, and are *not* pointers.
>
As a followup, it looks like alias grouping went crazy and turned on
here, when it didn't before.
It looks like we used t
On 7/7/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess most was binutils issues... sorry, 4.0.1 seems fine to me on
sparc-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00560.html
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
It looks like we are now giving type tags to global that didn't use to
have type tags, and are *not* pointers.
before:
Variable: pcheck, UID 511, real8, is an alias tag, is addressable, call
clobbered, default def: pcheck_83
...
Variable: TMT.68, UID 1386, real8, is addressable, is global, call
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
|
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :)
|
| However, my real point still stands:
|
| 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
| current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This happens because
> 1. People don't want to write texinfo, and continually submit patches to
> update the docs little by little (remember, people work on docs the same
> way they do on code. Most of the time, what they have written is not
> complete
This happens because
1. People don't want to write texinfo,
People don't like to write comments either, but I don't think most people
would suggest we stop requiring comments.
The documentation style of the GNU project is texinfo and that choice
was made for sound reasons, which continue
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
> | > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
| > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
| > universe at that, with quite some duplic
Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :)
However, my real point still stands:
1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
because they are out of date, but because they don't g
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
> to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
> universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
Have you not yet discov
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for project lists, "Hot Bugzillas" lists and
similar, but
Rohit Agarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As till now, I have been successful in making test programs run on the
> IXDP425 board compiled using a gcc compiler. Does that mean that I
> have ported eCos on the hardware? I know its a very silly question but
> since this is the first time I am worki
Falk Hueffner wrote:
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Likewise, compiling that version of gcc for alpha
dies while building the linux kernel, but for a different reason:
{standard input}:496: Error: macro requires $at register while noat in effect
make[1]: *** [arch/alpha/kernel/core_cia
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:45:04PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> James E Wilson writes:
> >> On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 07:31, Martin Koegler wrote:
> >> * need to rewrite recursivly each element of type (which my contain
> >> structures, unions, ...) if a address space is set
> >> In http://gcc.gnu.org
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 16:46 +0400, Serge Belyshev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have measured compilation time and memory usage of mainline on x86_64
> from 2005-02-25 to 2005-07-10 with one day interval.
So does Jan, and to be honest, his tester is better than your graphs,
because it knows the difference be
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Likewise, compiling that version of gcc for alpha
> dies while building the linux kernel, but for a different reason:
>
> {standard input}:496: Error: macro requires $at register while noat in effect
> make[1]: *** [arch/alpha/kernel/core_cia.o] Error 1
Thi
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Dan Kegel wrote:
> I can't build gcc-4.1-20050709 for target arm; it fails with
>
> gcc-4.1-20050709/libiberty/cp-demangle.c: In function 'd_print_comp':
> gcc-4.1-20050709/libiberty/cp-demangle.c:3342: internal compiler error: in
> loop_givs_rescan, at loop.c:5517
Kazu alrea
41 matches
Mail list logo
