Snapshot gcc-4.3-20081016 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20081016/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
"H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Even so, I'm now fairly confident that we should put GR_REGS and ACC_REGS
>> in the same cover class, which was the main area of doubt. I'll therefore
>> commit the MIPS port in a sec. Is it OK if I commit it to ira-merge
>> as well?
>>
>
> Please commit i
I am still looking into this, it's on my stack of PRE weirdness :)
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:29 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> Do we have a bug for these FAILs? Maybe we should add the analysis that
>> happened so
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:19:51PM -0500, Omar Torres wrote:
> Since implementing 64-bit support for this target is out of the
> question in the immediate future, I am in the look for an alternative
> solution.
Can't you just emit library calls for all the 64 bit operations, and
get inefficient b
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Omar Torres wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Can you or someone else tak
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Omar Torres wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>>> Oh my goodness, that
Paul Schlie wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Omar Torres wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>>
>>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>> Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also inc
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:18:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Lasse Kärkkäinen wrote on 15 October 2008 20:12:
>
> > The problem here is that the C++ standard requires line 8 to be
> > interpreted as a declaration of a function named str, returning string
> > and taking two arguments of type isbi (
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Omar Torres wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>
>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>
> Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as
> far as I ca
A reminder for the GCC Research Opportunities Workshop: the submission
deadline is on November 7, 2008. Also please note that we clarified the
publication policy.
CALL FOR PAPERS
1st International Workshop on GCC Research Opportunities (GROW'09)
held in conjunction with the 4th In
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is in fact defined as 32-bit in the port I am
>> working. I inherited this GCC port, so I do not now whether or not
>> this is fully compliant with C99 standard.
>
> You do now.
Yes, thanks.
>
>> I
Omar Torres wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Omar Torres wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>>
>>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:29 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> Do we have a bug for these FAILs? Maybe we should add the analysis that
> happened sofar.
>
> Richard.
I have created PR 37853.
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Omar Torres wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>
>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>
> Oh my goodness, that is
Omar Torres wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>
> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as
far as I can see: LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is nev
Hi Andrew,
Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
Thanks!
-Omar
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Omar Torres wrote:
>
>> I have a similar issue
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Joern Rennecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I now rely on the cfg and basic block execution counts in
> FINAL_PRESCAN_INSN ?
No. The CFG is destroyed well before we get there, and there are
passes in between that can modify jumps.
Gr.
Steven
Can I now rely on the cfg and basic block execution counts in
FINAL_PRESCAN_INSN ?
(Rely as in: we won't encounter dangling pointers, and we get
reasonable heuristics if at least -fguess-branch-probability
is enabled, and good heuristics if we use relevant profile based
feedback)
If yes, when di
Lasse Kärkkäinen wrote on 15 October 2008 20:12:
> The problem here is that the C++ standard requires line 8 to be
> interpreted as a declaration of a function named str, returning string
> and taking two arguments of type isbi (the first one is named cin and
> the second one is anonymous). The ex
Omar Torres wrote on 13 October 2008 19:46:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 10 October 2008 15:53:
>>
>>> "Omar Torres" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
The problem is that both, the quotient and reminder, registers are
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dan and Richard,
> >
> > Are either of you aware of the gcc.dg/vect/vect-67.c failure that is
> > occuring on some platforms? I see it on IA64 (Linux and HP-UX) but a
> > scan of the gcc-testresults mailing lists shows
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan and Richard,
>
> Are either of you aware of the gcc.dg/vect/vect-67.c failure that is
> occuring on some platforms? I see it on IA64 (Linux and HP-UX) but a
> scan of the gcc-testresults mailing lists shows failures on
Omar Torres wrote:
> I have a similar issue to what is reported here
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20143):
> /Applications/avr/avr-src/gcc/unwind.h:59: error: unable to emulate 'DI'
>
> As you clearly expressed by Paul, the underline issue that the target
> only support data type
23 matches
Mail list logo
