Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> What's the reason why ppc-linux and s390-linux targetted GCC
> requires 64-bit HWI these days?
> If it is a native compiler, this means using long long in a huge part
> of the compiler and therefore slower compile times and bigger memory
> consumption.
> ppc-linux configured
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You will need to get University of Illinois and
past/present LLVM developers to assign the copyright over to the FSF.
Yes, you've claimed it's easy, but it needs to be done. Otherwise, we are
in limbo. We
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 11:58 -0800, Devang Patel wrote:
What makes you think implementing LTO from scratch is different here?
Here are the questions for LLVM as well as LTO folks. (To be fair,
1) Documentation
How well is the documentation so that _ne
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:20:52PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > c) Modify the ppc 'Z' constraint to match the indexed address reload
> > generates. This would rely on the pattern we generate in
> > LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS never being generated elsewhere.
[snip]
>
> Overall, I'd tend to pref
Andreas Schwab wrote:-
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > sorry wrong number, I had meant 32769.
> > if (foo (32769) != 1)
> > abort ();
>
> I think with 16 bit ints you should get 0 here, since (int)32769 ==
> -32767, which is less than 32767.
int foo(unsigned short x)
{
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 11:58 -0800, Devang Patel wrote:
> > >
> > > With our limited resources, we cannot really afford to go off on a
> > > multi-year tangent nurturing and growing a new technology just to add
> > > a
> > > new feature.
> > >
> > What makes you think implementing LTO from scratch i
> >
> > With our limited resources, we cannot really afford to go off on a
> > multi-year tangent nurturing and growing a new technology just to add
> > a
> > new feature.
> >
> What makes you think implementing LTO from scratch is different here?
I read entire thread (last msg, I read is from Mik
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 12:25:28PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Actually I am not seeing that but instead I am seeing the subtraction done in
> short and not in int (which is far as I can tell and remember reading the
> promotion rules in C doing).
You're wrong about the C promotion rules.
r~
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sorry wrong number, I had meant 32769.
> if (foo (32769) != 1)
> abort ();
I think with 16 bit ints you should get 0 here, since (int)32769 ==
-32767, which is less than 32767.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux
>
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If we look at this testcase, we have a function like:
> > int foo(unsigned short x)
> > {
> > unsigned short y;
> > y = x > 32767 ? x - 32768 : 0;
> > return y;
> > }
> >
> >
> > x is promoted to a signed int by the front-end as the type
>
>
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > x is promoted to a signed int by the front-end as the type
> > of 32768 is signed. So when we pass 65535 to foo (like in the testcase),
> > we get some large negative number for (signed int)x
>
> I don't see how you can get a large negative nu
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we look at this testcase, we have a function like:
> int foo(unsigned short x)
> {
> unsigned short y;
> y = x > 32767 ? x - 32768 : 0;
> return y;
> }
>
>
> x is promoted to a signed int by the front-end as the type
> of 32768 is signed. So wh
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> x is promoted to a signed int by the front-end as the type
> of 32768 is signed. So when we pass 65535 to foo (like in the testcase),
> we get some large negative number for (signed int)x
I don't see how you can get a large negative number for that. W
If we look at this testcase, we have a function like:
int foo(unsigned short x)
{
unsigned short y;
y = x > 32767 ? x - 32768 : 0;
return y;
}
x is promoted to a signed int by the front-end as the type
of 32768 is signed. So when we pass 65535 to foo (like in the testcase),
we get some lar
Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TestCaseWriting
>
> The second one seems fairly gfortran-specific, but doesn't mention
> that fact anywhere. If the second page adds info that is generally
> useful to the whole co
Why are there two separate wiki pages on test case writing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TestCaseWriting
The second one seems fairly gfortran-specific, but doesn't mention that
fact anywhere. If the second page adds info that is generally useful to
the w
16 matches
Mail list logo
