shreyas krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi every one,
> Can some one please answer this. How do I get a tree node from
> an exisiting symbol for use in the LHS of a expression ? example a=10;
>
> thanks
> shrey
I don't really know what your asking but in a = is the the 1st operan
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I finally managed to track down the problem I've been having to this
> short code:
>
> typedef struct {
> unsigned car;
> unsigned cdr;
> } cons;
>
> void nconc (unsigned x, unsigned y) {
> unsigned *ptr
initfini.c needs -fno-unit-at-a-time. It's not a normal compilation, but a
special hack for generating assembly fragments. The development libc uses
the flag for that file.
Hi every one,
Can some one please answer this. How do I get a tree node from
an exisiting symbol for use in the LHS of a expression ? example a=10;
thanks
shrey
This was discussed as part of bugzilla PR/21828. I have filed PR 23190.
$ cat t.c
static int foo;
int bar;
int main(void)
{
foo += 3;
bar *= 5;
return 0;
}
$ xgcc -g -O2 -o t t.c
$ cat gdbcmds
b main
ptype foo
ptype bar
p foo
p bar
$ gdb --batch -x gdbcmds t
Reading symbols for shared
Hi -
Eyal wrote:
> [...]
> In the past -fmudflapth did the job. Something changed.
> The help suggests that the two options have a function but it
> is not clear (to me) what it is. [...]
This could be an unintended side-effect of rth's libmudflap pthreads
changes a week or two ago.
- FChE
pg
When I try to build recent glibc for ppc with gcc 4.1 I get a failure
complaining about multiple definitions of dummy and _init plus an
undefined reference to i_am_not_a_leaf. Searching on the web I see that
others have seen this with previous versions of gcc and fixed it with
-fno-unit-at-a-t
Geoff,
The problem is that I haven't ever submitted any paperwork so
anything I touch will be tainted. If you could post a revised patch
that applies to gcc main trunk, I'll test it locally and confirm
that it works.
Jack
On 01/08/2005, at 1:44 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
What I don't understand is how Apple's compiler can parse the
-bundle as the first argument and the gnu gcc compiler can't.
Shouldn't the same mechanism Apple uses to allow this to work
be backportable into gnu gcc?
No. There's lots of
Geoff,
What I don't understand is how Apple's compiler can parse the
-bundle as the first argument and the gnu gcc compiler can't.
Shouldn't the same mechanism Apple uses to allow this to work
be backportable into gnu gcc?
Jack
On 31/07/2005, at 12:03 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead
of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the
gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On
Apple's
compiler I can have a Makefile ent
Hi all,
I'm getting the following ICE when testing $subject:
simd-2.C: In function `int __vector__ vecfunc(int __vector__)':
simd-2.C:14: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 41 40 35 0 (set (reg:SI 21 xmm0 [ beachbum+12 ])
(mem:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 6 bp)
(
On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
With -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse -O2, we get an extra move for code
like
double d = atof(foo);
int i = d;
callatof
fstpl -8(%ebp)
movsd -8(%ebp), %xmm0
cvttsd2si %xmm0, %eax
(This is
michael meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
Have you tried eliminating all the
But I found they fails to match
if(foo & 0xff) and if(foo & 0x)
These get simplified to foo.
Look at the debugging dump before the combine pass to see what you
need to match.
It doesn't work that way. What you get from there are only the insn numbers.
Then you run cc1 (or whatever lan
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 10:38:46AM +0100, michael meeks wrote:
> Hi Giovanni,
>
> On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 15:36 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > I'm slow, but I can't understand why a careful design of the interfaces of
> > the dynamic libraries
>
> Well - sure, depends how 'careful' you are ;
Hi!
I'm a bit confused about the uses of the decls stored in the
implicit_builtin_decls and builtin_decls arrays. I suppose
the builtin_decls array should contain the __builtin_X variant,
while the implicit_builtin_decls variant should contain the X
variant. Most of the code emitting calls to f
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 17:27 +0300, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
> >
> > I don't think there was an intention to force recomputation - probably just
> > overlooked what the third argument actually stands for. These occurrences
> > could probably be changed to false.
> >
>
> Yeah,
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 17:27 +0300, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...
> >
> > The problem seems to be that analyze_offset_expr calls the scev
> > analyzer explicitely asking for recomputation (third parameter is
> > true):
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Why should we start the analysis from scratch in thi
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 22:36 +0800, Chunjiang Li wrote:
> Hi, all:
>
> Also the problem about Pseudo register usage.
>
> I want to know the Pseudo registers used (def and ref) in a basic block.
> How can I get these result using the APIs presented in GCC?
> Need help. Urgently
>
See df.h/df.c
Thx.
I also guessed that.
But, for I am a rookie in GCC, I know little about GCC, need advice.
Ian Lance Taylor :
> Chunjiang Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wonder is it true that one Pseudo register is only corresponding to one
> basic block?
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > the reg_info struc
> ...
>
> The problem seems to be that analyze_offset_expr calls the scev
> analyzer explicitely asking for recomputation (third parameter is
> true):
>
> ...
>
> Why should we start the analysis from scratch in this case? The same
> question could be asked for all the uses of analyze_scalar_e
Hi, all:
Also the problem about Pseudo register usage.
I want to know the Pseudo registers used (def and ref) in a basic block.
How can I get these result using the APIs presented in GCC?
Need help. Urgently.
May be need to refer the df.c and df.h interface, but I am not sure.
Chunjiang Li
Hi, all:
Also the problem about Pseudo register usage.
I want to know the Pseudo registers used (def and ref) in a basic block.
How can I get these result using the APIs presented in GCC?
Need help. Urgently
Chunjiang Li
Creative Compiler Research Group,
National University of Defense Technol
Hello,
I was just looking at the output of the data dep analyzer for
ltrans-1.c and I was quite surprised to see that array indexes are
analyzed twice, as in the following output:
(analyze_array
(ref = u[D.1485_16];
)
(analyze_scalar_evolution
(loop_nb = 1)
(scalar = D.1485_16)
(get_scala
On Monday 01 August 2005 11:44, michael meeks wrote:
> However - the log(s) term is rather irrelevant to my argument :-)
Not really. Maybe the oprofile results for the linker show that the
behavior is worse, or maybe better - who knows :-)
Have you looked at any profiles btw? Just for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| index
|
| Send list of open bugs in product , component .
| You can use '*' for components, which returns all of the open bugs in
| every component for that product.
Hi Dan,
Now that "index" has been enhanced to accept target version, w
Chunjiang Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder is it true that one Pseudo register is only corresponding to one
> basic block?
No, it isn't.
> the reg_info struct is:
>
> typedef struct reg_info_def
> { /* fields set by reg_scan */
> int first_uid;
Hi, all,
When I read the GCC source code about register allocation,
I wonder is it true that one Pseudo register is only corresponding to one
basic block?
the reg_info struct is:
typedef struct reg_info_def
{ /* fields set by reg_scan */
int first_uid;
Hi Dan,
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 11:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MM wrote in http://go-oo.org/~michael/OOoStartup.pdf:
> "... not one slot was overridden by an implementation
> method external to the implementing library."
This is really an issue rather orthogonal to that of 'final',
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 18:25 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > All input much appreciated; no doubt my terminology is irritatingly up
> > > the creek, hopefully the sentiment will win through.
> > >
> > > http://go-oo.org/~michael/OOoStartup.pdf
>
> One thing I don't understand is the formula w
Hi Giovanni,
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 15:36 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I'm slow, but I can't understand why a careful design of the interfaces of
> the dynamic libraries
Well - sure, depends how 'careful' you are ;-) clearly if no C++
classes with virtual methods form the interface of any
sorry to Ian for replying to the wrong address :)
The result after instruction combination is in *.20.combine
but the rtl pattern *.19.life in
1.) if(foo & 0x1ff)
2.) if(foo & 0xff)
are almost the same
I mean the debugging dump only shows the "input" and "output" of
the combination.
But w
33 matches
Mail list logo
