Hello,
after getting a "working" version of the gcc 4.0.2 with the Nintendo
8-bit-write problem, I was busy the last weeks trying to adapt the
linux system (replacing I/O with writeb() macros, removing strb
assembler calls).
However, it turned out that the sources of the linux kernel are a far
Folks,
I'm currently looking at substantively revamping synth_mult(), the gcc
routine for reducing multiplicative constants to shift/add/sub sequences.
My perception here, from experimentation, is that synth_mult() is:
1. slow (deeply recursive)
2. bag of tricks including factoring (factoring is
"Daniel S. Wilkerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All I want to know is can I consider the file at this URL to be the
> official version of gcc 2.8.1:
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-2.8.1.tar.gz
Yes, that is the official version of gcc 2.8.1.
This does not constitute legal advice, and whether
Zak Greant via RT wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:22PDT (CA), Daniel S. Wilkerson via RT wrote:
Could you please provide me with a URL to an offical copy of gcc
2.8.1?
I just need to check that some code we wrote that used to be
intimately
connected with that version of gcc no longer conta
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 7/18/06, David A. Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> there is a link "wiki" on http://gcc.gnu.org that points to
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki
>>
>> which doesn't exist
>
> It does exist, but it is down.
>
> There should be a web page there to explain this, and why it is
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> >The untested files are compiled with --fprofile-arcs and
> >-ftest-coverage so they do have .bb and .bbg files (again, I use Gcc
> >3.3.6) so my thinking is to extract the part of gcov.c that count
> >source code lines and create my own tool to do this by reading the
>
On 7/18/06, David A. Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
there is a link "wiki" on http://gcc.gnu.org that points to
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki
which doesn't exist
It does exist, but it is down.
There should be a web page there to explain this, and why it is down.
Too many people are asking the sam
there is a link "wiki" on http://gcc.gnu.org that points to
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki
which doesn't exist
dave
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Everything must be explicitly represented in the IL, totally
> > independent from the input language.
>
> FWIW, I agree. However, I do not agree that two types are compatible
> iff they would produce identical RTL. GIMPLE should still know th
Hello,
> Diego Novillo wrote:
> > sean yang wrote on 07/17/06 22:16:
> >
> >> Can someone give a brief introduction? Hopefully my question is clear:)
> >>
> > When you insert a brand new GIMPLE statement, the symbols referenced in
> > it must be rewritten into SSA form. See the section 'Preservi
Diego Novillo wrote:
> sean yang wrote on 07/17/06 22:16:
>
>> Can someone give a brief introduction? Hopefully my question is clear:)
>>
> When you insert a brand new GIMPLE statement, the symbols referenced in
> it must be rewritten into SSA form. See the section 'Preserving the SSA
> form' in
sean yang wrote on 07/17/06 22:16:
> Can someone give a brief introduction? Hopefully my question is clear:)
>
When you insert a brand new GIMPLE statement, the symbols referenced in
it must be rewritten into SSA form. See the section 'Preserving the SSA
form' in the GCC internals manual.
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
The untested files are compiled with --fprofile-arcs and
-ftest-coverage so they do have .bb and .bbg files (again, I use Gcc
3.3.6) so my thinking is to extract the part of gcov.c that count
source code lines and create my own tool to do this by reading the
bb-file. But
13 matches
Mail list logo
