DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In expmed.c I see code like this:
>
> if (REG_P (xop0) && GET_MODE (xop0) != op_mode)
> xop0 = gen_rtx_SUBREG (op_mode, xop0, 0);
>
> However, this is wrong for big-endian targets (h8300-elf in my case)
> because '0' is not the offset of the LSB
Hello,
Could anyone explain to me why the following C++ class's destructor
shows up as having multiple branches? (At least as judged by gcov
when compiled with g++ 4.1.2 ). This was run on Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 5.
struct blah
{
blah();
virtual ~blah();
};
blah::blah()
{
}
blah::~blah()
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:40:52PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Sounds like a perfect use for the new feature attribute-enabled;
> skipping alternatives depending on TARGET_... See md.texi
> "@subsection Disable insn alternatives using the @code{enabled}
> attribute".
Thanks for the pointer
In expmed.c I see code like this:
if (REG_P (xop0) && GET_MODE (xop0) != op_mode)
xop0 = gen_rtx_SUBREG (op_mode, xop0, 0);
However, this is wrong for big-endian targets (h8300-elf in my case)
because '0' is not the offset of the LSB of the register when it's a
pseudo and op_mode i
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Moreover, the .md file also doesn't get more readable if I replace
> a three character constraint string with a multiword iterator invocation...
> for something like eight out of 14 alternatives for some instructions.
Um yeah, there is that...
> FWIW,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 07:06:29AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> You could use iterators... except you'd probably want to iterate
> over text, not RTX codes or machine modes. Maybe a good reason
> to introduce generalized (or maybe just text) iterators!
>
> (define_iterator i [foo bar])
> (d
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20081024 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20081024/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Matt Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reliable way to write data to the stack such that a called
> function pointer can extract the values it seeks?
I suggest you look into libffi which is already used for this purpose
for GCJ (inside libgcj).
Thanks,
I'm working on a system where we're jumping from Java into C to pull a
function out of a dictionary (indexed by string name) and calling it
as a 'long (*)(void *, ...). There's some confusion as to if there is
a method to copy a structure or an array onto the stack through the
... arg such that th
I checked the gcc code, if anyone wants to try to add this.
latest of cvs as of today
gcc/cp/decl.c : 9141
add a cxx_dialect == cxx0x check so it doesn't error on the static only
member init
gcc/cp/init.c perform_member_init
If the member has no initialization, grab the init tree and perform t
Committed as attached. Thanks!
> Sure.
2008-10-24 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/scanasm.exp (scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not,
scan-hidden, scan-not-hidden, scan-file, scan-file-not,
scan-assembler-times, scan-assembler-dem, scan-assembler-dem-not):
E
Following the transition from Global Write Privilege maintainers
to Global Reviewers, the GCC Steering Committee has decided to restructure
some appointments to rationalize and simplify the current maintainers,
particularly non-algorithmic maintainers. I am pleased to announce...
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:01 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > OK, after you've run the testsuite with this change. The ChangeLog
> > entry should show the names of all of the procs you changed.
>
> Is gcc.target/i386.exp enough? I originally found it with
> xstormy16-elf on an older branch, but xstor
Vom 24.10.-29.10.08 bin ich in Urlaub.
In dringenden Fällen Ansprechpartnerin in der Redaktion : Frau Fahrion (1438),
BR: Frau Rolke (1388) oder Herr Kunter (1447).
__
Message from "Shirley Russo"
__
I recognize from your email address that this is the first message I have
received from you since TMC began using Sender Addr
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> > I think you could achieve the same result by writing multiple
> > define_insn patterns and using the instruction predicate.
>
> Yes, I could. But that would quadruple my machine
16 matches
Mail list logo
