baver writes:
> A sample code listing is at the bottom of the email, as well as the lines
> we've added to opcodes/mips-opc.c for our opcodes.
>
>
>
> Anyone know how to stop the register from being stored and read from on the
> stack? We've defined it as
>
> volatile register int idx asm(
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 05:50:35PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jack Howarth
>> wrote:
>> > Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for
>> > gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite
long L$set$159
+ .word 0x1
+ .byte 0x56
+ .long 0x0
+ .long 0x0
+ .section __DWARF,__debug_info,regular,debug
+ .long 0x296
+ .word 0x2
+ .set L$set$160,Ldebug_abbrev0-Lsection__debug_abbrev
+ .long L$set$160
+ .byte 0x4
+ .byte
Hi all,
Not sure if this fits in more with GCC or binutils.
We have amodified binutils/gcc to add a few opcodes to the MIPS-I ISA for a
processor we've designed as part of our academics. One of these opcodes writes
an index into a register we specify.
This works, but we're seeing
1) the valu
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for
> gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite failures
> related to the new stackalignment changes. These all share the
> commmon feature of only failing with the -O3 -g c
"andrew babanin" writes:
> I am working on the remote procedure call system integrated into C
> language. System called CRPC,
> it consists of C wrapper compiler and shared library. Wrapper compiler
> works with GCC.
>
> New RPC system helps you develop socket based applications. With the
> syste
Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for
gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite failures
related to the new stackalignment changes. These all share the
commmon feature of only failing with the -O3 -g compiler option
flags...
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-a
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >
> >> As code shared by GCC and glibc I would suggest the same license notice as
> >> soft-fp (LGPL >= 2.1 + exception) to allow an identical file to be shared.
> >>
> >> (Indeed, soft-fp uses this
Hello, my name is Andrey Babanin.
I am working on the remote procedure call system integrated into C
language. System called CRPC,
it consists of C wrapper compiler and shared library. Wrapper compiler
works with GCC.
New RPC system helps you develop socket based applications. With the
system yo
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> As code shared by GCC and glibc I would suggest the same license notice as
>> soft-fp (LGPL >= 2.1 + exception) to allow an identical file to be shared.
>> (Indeed, soft-fp uses this header.) The version in GMP diverged long ago
>> so sharing
Hello Jacque,
Jacques Lefrere wrote:
> I thought that the argument of the intrinsic function "range"
> could be integer, real or complex.
> But the manual mentions that it should be of type real or complex only.
> (see "http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.3.2/gfortran/RANGE.html#RANGE";)
Corrected
Hello,
I thought that the argument of the intrinsic function "range"
could be integer, real or complex.
But the manual mentions that it should be of type real or complex only.
(see "http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.3.2/gfortran/RANGE.html#RANGE";)
Thanks for adding integer type.
Best regards
Alias-Improvements Branch
=
The primary objective of the branch is to transition away from the use
of the virtual operand use-def chains as data-flow representation for
memory optimizations. Memory optimizers need to transition to the
use of the alias-oracle which is a qu
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 23:20 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps we should add a comment to common.opt to explain this?
>>
>> Yes, we could apply this patch.
>
> Looks good to me (and I think it qualifies as obvious) :-).
I've committe
Hi,
Is there any difference between (*(x)).a and (x)->a, if x is an
expression which generates a struct pointer.
I found the assembly code of these two generated by gcc are the same.
But is the implementation compiler dependent? Or do they just have the
same meaning expressed in different syntax?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>>
>>> int *
>>> x(void)
>>> {
>>> register int *a asm("unknown_register"); /* { dg-error "invalid register"
>>> } */
>>> int *v[1] = {a};
>>> return v[1];
>>> }
>>> -
>>
>> int *
>> x(void)
>> {
>> register int *a asm("unknown_register"); /* { dg-error "invalid register"
>> } */
>> int *v[1] = {a};
>> return v[1];
>> }
>>
>
> I think simply scalarizing for the above testcase
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have found the testcase gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c
> failing when I was testing my new SRA. The testcase is quite simple,
> should error out but no longer does:
>
>
> int
Hi,
I have found the testcase gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c
failing when I was testing my new SRA. The testcase is quite simple,
should error out but no longer does:
int *
x(void)
{
register int *a asm("unknown_register"); /* { dg-error "
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Richard Guenther
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > A release ca
20 matches
Mail list logo
