Re: Set environment variable on remote target

Andreas Schwab wrote: Jie Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: @@ -261,7 +262,11 @@ proc rsh_exec { boardname program pargs inp outp } { set inp "/dev/null" } -set ret [local_exec "$RSH $rsh_useropts $hostname sh -c '$program $pargs \\; echo XYZ\\\${?}ZYX'" $inp $outp $timeout]

gcc-4.2-20080716 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080716 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080716/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: Question about doloop_end pattern

Hi Bingfeng, > Hello, > I tried to use doloop_end pattern to reduce loop overhead for our target > processor, which features a dedicated loop instruction. Somehow even a > simple loop just cannot pass the test of doloop_condition_get, which > requires following canonical pattern. I checked this

Re: Set environment variable on remote target

Jie Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > @@ -261,7 +262,11 @@ proc rsh_exec { boardname program pargs inp outp } { > set inp "/dev/null" > } > > -set ret [local_exec "$RSH $rsh_useropts $hostname sh -c '$program $pargs > \\; echo XYZ\\\${?}ZYX'" $inp $outp $timeout] > +set rem

Set environment variable on remote target

libmudflap tests set a environment MUDFLAP_OPTIONS=-viol-segv before testing such that violations are promoted to SIGSEGV signals in testing. Otherwise, the exit value would be 0 even the test has violations. libmudflap testsuite depends on the exit value of tests to decide if the test PASS or

RE: Question about doloop_end pattern

Thanks. I just checked the latest mainline version and couldn't find doloop related stuff in config/arc/arc.md. Will you merge your code into mainline? Did you also get modulo scheduling work properly? Bingfeng > -Original Message- > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Se

Re: Question about doloop_end pattern

I can confirm that the doloop optimization is applied for ARC600 / ARC700 in a compiler based on gcc 4.4.0 20080606 (experimental) . OTOH, it doesn't use any of the PRE_INC, POST_INC, PRE_MODIFY or POST_MODIFY addressing modes. lp .L__GCC__LP2 .align 4 .L2: add r0,r1,r4

Re: A question about varargs

"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The value is too big for a long long. When you specify the type, gcc >> is forced to convert (I hope you can get a warning for that). When >> you don't specify the type, gcc does not convert. The resulting value >> has a type which can only be expr

Re: [tuples] Jakub is now branch maintainer

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Diego Novillo wrote: > You've been doing great work on the branch, so Aldy and I think that > you don't really need patch approval for branch patches anymore. So, > from now on, feel free to commit your patches without waiting for an > explicit approval. Hear, hear. ;-) Do y

Re: A question about varargs

2008/7/16 Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I am involved in the porting of gcc 4.1.2 for 16 bit target. For this >> target size of long long is 32bits. For the following code >> >> #define VALUE 0x1B4E81B4E81B4DLL > > That is not a 32-bit valu

Re: Question about doloop_end pattern

"Bingfeng Mei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried to use doloop_end pattern to reduce loop overhead for our target > processor, which features a dedicated loop instruction. Somehow even a > simple loop just cannot pass the test of doloop_condition_get, which > requires following canonical patt

Re: A question about varargs

"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am involved in the porting of gcc 4.1.2 for 16 bit target. For this > target size of long long is 32bits. For the following code > > #define VALUE 0x1B4E81B4E81B4DLL That is not a 32-bit value. > #define AFTER 0x55 > > //void test (int n, long lon

Question about doloop_end pattern

Hello, I tried to use doloop_end pattern to reduce loop overhead for our target processor, which features a dedicated loop instruction. Somehow even a simple loop just cannot pass the test of doloop_condition_get, which requires following canonical pattern. /* The canonical doloop pattern we ex

A question about varargs

Hello all, I am involved in the porting of gcc 4.1.2 for 16 bit target. For this target size of long long is 32bits. For the following code #define VALUE 0x1B4E81B4E81B4DLL #define AFTER 0x55 //void test (int n, long long q, int y); void test (int n, ...); int main () { test (1, VALUE, AFTER)

Re: Is this the expected behavior?

Mohamed Shafi wrote: 2008/7/15 Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I agree with you, but what about when there are still caller save register are available and there are no register restrictions for any instructions? In my case i find that GCC has used only the argument registers, sta

Re: Ada bootstrap failure for i686-pc-linux-gnu on trunk

Rainer Emrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does anybody else sees this? > > Comparing stages 2 and 3 > Bootstrap comparison failure! See . Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße

Ada bootstrap failure for i686-pc-linux-gnu on trunk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Does anybody else sees this? Comparing stages 2 and 3 Bootstrap comparison failure! ./ada/a-except.o differs ./ada/errout.o differs ./ada/rident.o differs ./ada/restrict.o differs ./ada/s-soflin.o differs ./ada/targparm.o differs ./ada/s-restri.o dif