ltmain.sh starts with this line:
# Generated from ltmain.m4sh; do not edit by hand
but we don't seem to have ltmain.m4sh in the source tree.
Volker Reichelt wrote:
> 2007-03-26 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>* parser.c (cp_parser_member_declaration): Pedwarn
>about stray semicolons after member declarations.
>
> It makes
>
> struct A
> {
> void foo() {};
> }
That is indeed still legal in the curre
Kai,
did you make your diff against the current CVS checkout or against
your first patch? Should your changes already work for some cases? I
would like to test if they produce the right instructions. However, I
do not have enough insight into gcc to work on it myself.
Thanks,
Nicolas
On A
On 8/1/07, Ayal Zaks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/08/2007 18:27:35:
>
> > On 8/1/07, Tehila Meyzels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/07/2007 18:00:57:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you for condition
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Who is calling CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value?
> plus_constant calls CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value.
>
> simplify_binary_operation_1 calls plus_constant ( while trying to
> simplify PLUS on (const_double:SF 0 [0x0] 0.0 [0x0.0p+0]) & (const_int
>
On 8/1/07 3:03 PM, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Is there a way to make it show the actual expressions in the code
> instead?
Other than changing the code in tree-cfg.c:tree_cfg2vcg(), not really.
Also, this dump is fairly static in that it only happens right after the
CFG is built for the first time (befor
Hi,
I'm trying to print the cfg so that I can visualize it. I have a simple
file,
$ cat foo.c
int
foo (int param)
{
param++;
if (param)
param++;
return param;
}
I run the command,
$ gcc -fdump-tree-vcg-blocks -c foo.c
and then I run,
xvcg *.vcg
which displays a pi
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/08/2007 18:27:35:
> On 8/1/07, Tehila Meyzels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/07/2007 18:00:57:
> >
> > >
> > > I agree with you for conditional stores/loads.
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > >
> > > The unconditi
I just got tricked by my change to DEV-PHASE. Since the branch no
longer says 'experimental' but it specifies the branch name and the
mainline merge revision number, configure is defaulting to
--enable-checking=release.
So, when configuring the branch make sure you specify --enable-checking.
> Who is calling CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value?
plus_constant calls CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value.
simplify_binary_operation_1 calls plus_constant ( while trying to
simplify PLUS on (const_double:SF 0 [0x0] 0.0 [0x0.0p+0]) & (const_int
-2147483648 [0x8000]) ), which in turn calls CONST_DOUBL
On 8/1/07 12:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> So, when configuring the branch make sure you specify --enable-checking.
Oh, never mind. Andrew pointed out that it's much easier to just modify
version.c as we usually do on branches. Silly me.
No need to explicitly --enable-checking now. Apologies
==
CALL FOR PAPERS - One Final Week Extension
GREPS '07
Workshop on GCC for Research in Embedded and Parallel Systems
Brasov, Romania, September 16, 2007
http://sysrun.haifa.il.ibm.com/hrl/greps
This is the beta release of binutils 2.17.50.0.18 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2007 0731 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note the REG_EQUAL note of insn 17. cse tries to replace reg:SI 138
> with a constant and because of insn 13, the note becomes (float:SF
> (const_int 0)) which in turn cse converts into
>
> REG_EQUAL (const_double:SF 0 [0x0] 0.0 [0x0.0p+0])
That
On 8/1/07, Tehila Meyzels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/07/2007 18:00:57:
>
> >
> > I agree with you for conditional stores/loads.
>
> Great!
>
> >
> > The unconditional store/load stuff, however, is exactly what
> > tree-ssa-sink was meant to do, and
Hi,
I am working on a private port and getting an ICE in valid code. This
mainly is because of the following ( which is a part of the entire
dump of RTL of the source file)
(insn 13 8 14 2 /fc3/testcases/reduce/testcase-min.i:8 (set (reg:SI 138)
(const_int 0 [0x0])) 44 {*movsi} (expr_list:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 03:57:19AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> WARNING: program timed out.
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
It's in the archives:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00155.html>
--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On 8/1/07 8:07 AM, Razya Ladelsky wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to create low gimple code for
> gimplify_omp_atomic_pipeline
> cases?
Interesting. I think it's the first time we run into this problem. I
don't see force_gimple_operand trying to emit low GIMPLE. But we always
use it from the
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of
>>how long it takes?
>
> I think you need to pass "set timeout -1" into dejagnu. I'd suggest a larger
> positive timeout instead.
>
> I forget the correct way to do this - I used to end up editing th
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> gcc/
> * emit-rtl.c (reset_used_decls): Rename to...
> (set_used_decls): ...this. Set the used flag rather than clearing it.
> (unshare_all_rtl_again): Update accordingly. Set flags on argument
> DECL_RTLs rather than resett
Hi Jan,
Jan Hubicka wrote on 31.07.2007 23:40:40:
> > Hi Kai,
> >
> > so, could you resolve the remaining issues? Or have you kind of
> > paused the project?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> > On Jul 12, 2007, at 2:14 , Kai Tietz wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I am nearly through :) Th
2007/8/1, Rupert Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> >Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of
> >how long it takes?
>
> I think you need to pass "set timeout -1" into dejagnu. I'd suggest a larger
> positive timeout instead.
>
> I forget the correct
Hi,
In order to generate code for omp_atomic, I use force_gimple_operand which
calls gimplify_omp_atomic;
in some cases it calls gimplify_omp_atomic_pipeline, which expands the
atomic operation to a
cycle (implementing it using atomic compare-and-swap primitive).
However, the cond_expr that is
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/07/2007 18:00:57:
>
> I agree with you for conditional stores/loads.
Great!
>
> The unconditional store/load stuff, however, is exactly what
> tree-ssa-sink was meant to do, and belongs there (this is #3 above).
> I'm certainly going to fight tooth
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of
>how long it takes?
I think you need to pass "set timeout -1" into dejagnu. I'd suggest a larger
positive timeout instead.
I forget the correct way to do this - I used to end up editing the .exp files
Sorry, no need already to bother with the last question, already knew that it
is (again) generated automatically from the Machine description file
petruk_gile wrote:
>
> Thanks .. your reply is really helpful ...
>
> Btw, I checked the MIPS backend at MIPS.c, but I can't find the defini
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of howlong it
>> takes?
>>
>> I am getting "program timed out" warnings for multiple tests :
>>
>> Running
>> /export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/compile.exp
>> ...
>> WARNIN
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of howlong it
takes?
I am getting "program timed out" warnings for multiple tests :
Running
/export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/compile.exp
...
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL
Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of howlong it
takes?
I am getting "program timed out" warnings for multiple tests :
Running
/export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/compile.exp
...
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compil
Thanks .. your reply is really helpful ...
Btw, I checked the MIPS backend at MIPS.c, but I can't find the definition
of some functions such as:
get_attr_hazard(), gen_hazard_nop (), etc.
Anyone know where those functions defined?
Ian Lance Taylor-3 wrote:
>
> petruk_gile <[EMAIL PROTE
30 matches
Mail list logo
