Re: Microchip PIC

2006-01-30 Thread François Poulain
For the instant, I am learning for how GCC work, and for the definition of machines descriptor. I founded the GCC port for PIC30, but it 's very far of the PIC18. I also seen the IP2022 port, and it will be helpfull. In the Microchip PIC, there is only one Work register, but all the RAM memory acc

Re: Microchip PIC

2006-01-30 Thread DJ Delorie
> everything else in data memory (which they use in the manner of a > register file)...IDK how well GCC's register allocator would handle > such a thing... For the m32c, I ended up describing 8 "registers" that were really memory. It gave gcc something to work with at least, but you have to get

Re: Microchip PIC

2006-01-30 Thread Lucas (a.k.a T-Bird or bsdfan3)
I'm sorry about my e-mail client mangling your name in the To: field. I don't know about the Microchip source, but I'd be happy to help with the GCC->PIC18Fxxx port...however, PIC's have 1 true accumulator (W) and everything else in data memory (which they use in the manner of a register file)

Microchip PIC

2006-01-30 Thread François Poulain
Hello, I am talking about porting GCC on PIC18Fxxx, by Microchip. I found some source code from Microchip to support the PIC30F. Anyone can tell me why this code isn't in the gcc tree ? Is it dirty code ? I ask this question, cause I maybe re-use that source code for testing. Best Regards, --

Re: Mainline is broken on ia64

2006-01-30 Thread Richard Henderson
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:31:18AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > Does that mean DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO should be checked before using > INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX instead of checking INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX? Yes. But as-quoted, it already is. r~

Re: Enabling tree->rtl to generate (plus for asm() operands at O0

2006-01-30 Thread Andrew Pinski
> I'm trying to get: > > void foo() { >int rowfraclo[2]; >rowfraclo[1] = 42; >asm ("movd mm6, %a0" : : "p" (rowfraclo+1)); > } > > With the below patch (still running the testsuite) I can get the > compiler to generate that code. So, the question is how better can I > do this? I

Re: Reconsidering gcjx

2006-01-30 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Thorsten" == Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> ecj is written in java. This will complicate the bootstrap process. Thorsten> Why not keep enough support in jc1 to bootstrap ecj? We don't know how much of the language that would be. Tom

Enabling tree->rtl to generate (plus for asm() operands at O0

2006-01-30 Thread Mike Stump
I'm trying to get: void foo() { int rowfraclo[2]; rowfraclo[1] = 42; asm ("movd mm6, %a0" : : "p" (rowfraclo+1)); } to generate: movd mm6, -4(%ebp) at -O0. Currently we generate: leal-8(%ebp), %eax addl$4, %eax movd mm6, (%eax) With the below patch (still running

RFD: marking a variable as addressable - need new hook? (pr26004)

2006-01-30 Thread Joern RENNECKE
gimplify.c:gimplify_modify_expr_rhs tries to optimize calls to functions which return their value in memory, if the result is assigned to a variable, by using the address of that variable as the location where the result is top be stored. It uses lang_hooks.mark_addressable to mark the variabl

Re: Changing the number of registers

2006-01-30 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 30, 2006, at 9:50 AM, murali wrote: I am trying to change the number of registers for simplescalar's gcc (2.7.2.3) compiler. It is unlikely we're going to help much with 2.7.2.3, we'd recommend up-porting to gcc 4.2 to start with.

Re: Mainline is broken on ia64

2006-01-30 Thread H. J. Lu
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:26:44AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:20:41PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Can you try the obvious patch here (surrounding INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX > > with an ifdef)? > > That would be wrong. INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX is *required* > wh

Re: Mainline is broken on ia64

2006-01-30 Thread Richard Henderson
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:20:41PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Can you try the obvious patch here (surrounding INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX > with an ifdef)? That would be wrong. INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX is *required* when defining DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO. But DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO shouldn't be defined

[gnu.org #272999] Gcc installation help

2006-01-30 Thread Stephen Huenneke via RT
Hi, I'm sorry, but as this is only a general contact address, I cannot properly answer technical questions such as yours. The best I can do is refer you to the GCC Manual (http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/) and Frequently Asked Questions (http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html). If neither of those provide an

Re: libmudflap on Solaris?

2006-01-30 Thread Aleksandar Milivojevic
Quoting Rainer Orth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Aleksandar Milivojevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Was there any work (or plans) on porting libmudflap to Solaris (either SPARC or x86)? Last time I looked (cf. PR libmudflap/15176), libmudflap depended on GNU ld's --wrap option. You might have some

Changing the number of registers

2006-01-30 Thread murali
Hi, I am trying to change the number of registers for simplescalar's gcc (2.7.2.3) compiler. I modified the ss.h file - FIXED_REGISTERS bits and CALL_USED_REGISTERS bits, so as to leave just 8 integer and 4 FP registers. But when I do a live registers analysis, I get > 8 integer registers live.

Re: libmudflap on Solaris?

2006-01-30 Thread Rainer Orth
Aleksandar Milivojevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Was there any work (or plans) on porting libmudflap to Solaris (either > SPARC or x86)? Last time I looked (cf. PR libmudflap/15176), libmudflap depended on GNU ld's --wrap option. You might have some success when you use GNU binutils, but I

Re: Reconsidering gcjx

2006-01-30 Thread Andrew Haley
Tom Tromey writes: > > "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew> In particular, the type system and the rules for exception > Andrew> regions are different. Also, a "slot" in the .class format > Andrew> doesn't necessarily correspond to a variable in the source >

XML tree dumps

2006-01-30 Thread Dietmar Ebner
Hi, we're currently developing an experimental back-end for a very irregular DSP architecture violating very basic assumptions of the gcc back-end. In order to have the option to switch the front-end for experimental reasons and to have a clear interface to gcc, we chose to decouple the back-end

libmudflap on Solaris?

2006-01-30 Thread Aleksandar Milivojevic
Was there any work (or plans) on porting libmudflap to Solaris (either SPARC or x86)? This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: How to reverse patch reversal in cfgcleanup.c (Was: RFA: re-instate struct_equiv code)

2006-01-30 Thread Joern RENNECKE
Bernd Schmidt wrote: Joern RENNECKE wrote: Because the new code as of December actually updated life information incorrectly, the global updates that were done had also quite a lot of work to do (and didn't really do it right, because of the presence of fake edges). Could you elaborate on

Toplevel bootstrap only - where are we?

2006-01-30 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
Paolo's recent post on gcc-patches reminded me of all the toplevel libgcc changes I have pending. To recap, the dependence is: if libgcc is moved out of the top level, the "configure --disable-bootstrap; make bootstrap" approach will no longer work. Building without a bootstrap will be fine, of c

Re: Reconsidering gcjx

2006-01-30 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Tom Tromey dixit: >In my preferred approach we would simply delete a portion of the >existing gcj and turn jc1 into a purely bytecode-based compiler. >ecj is written in java. This will complicate the bootstrap process. Why not keep enough support in jc1 to bootstrap ecj? Maybe split out so that