On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Rodrigo Dominguez wrote:
When assembling this program, 'cc1' emits a 'shrl %ecx, %eax'
instruction.
The 'shr' instruction can only take an 8-bit register as the first
operand.
The emitted instruction should have been 'shrl %cl, %eax'.
Therefore, the
compilation
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Rodrigo Dominguez wrote:
> H.J,
>
> Thanks for replying but this doesn't answer my question. Shouldn't __asm__
> generate the right code without using the %b1 trick? The reason I am asking
> is I have a 350 line macro which I can't change.
Those macros are wrong.
> "Rodrigo" == Rodrigo Dominguez writes:
Rodrigo> H.J, Thanks for replying but this doesn't answer my
Rodrigo> question. Shouldn't __asm__ generate the right code without
Rodrigo> using the %b1 trick? The reason I am asking is I have a 350
Rodrigo> line macro which I can't change.
GCC do
H.J,
Thanks for replying but this doesn't answer my question. Shouldn't __asm__
generate the right code without using the %b1 trick? The reason I am asking
is I have a 350 line macro which I can't change.
Is there any documentation about __asm__ default behavior regarding this
issue? Something li
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Rodrigo Dominguez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While debugging a problem with Open64, I ran into a similar problem with
> GCC. I created the following unit test program:
>
> #include
>
> int main(void)
> {
> uint32_t a = 7;
> int8_t s = -1;
>
> __asm__ ("shr
Hi Sebastian and Tobias,
I am a final year undergraduate in the Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur, India and I would like to work in the summers on the
auto-parallelization of loops in the Graphite framework. I'll be have a
long summer break of 3 months and I would like to pursue this proj
Hi,
While debugging a problem with Open64, I ran into a similar problem with
GCC. I created the following unit test program:
#include
int main(void)
{
uint32_ta = 7;
int8_t s = -1;
__asm__ ("shrl %1, %0\n\t"
: "+r" (a)
: "c" (-s)
);
Brian Ellis wrote:
> struct dynamic { int size; int array[]; };
> int main() { struct dynamic * pBadness = ((struct dynamic *) malloc(
> sizeof(int) * 3) );
> dont_do_this( *pBadness );
Are you even allowed to dereference a pointer to a struct containing a VLA?
Should it be treated like an
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Tim Prince
wrote:
> Software developers I deal with use gcc because it's a guaranteed included
> part of the customer platforms they are targeting. They're generally
> looking for a 20% gain in performance plus support before adopting
> commercial alternatives.
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > I see nothing about passing by value different from structure assignment,
> > which ignores the flexible array member (see 6.7.2.1 paragraph 22 (in
> > N1256) for an example stating this). Although argument passing and return
> > aren't strictly as
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Should
>>
>> struct line {
>> int length;
>> char contents[0];
>> };
>>
>> or
>>
>> struct line {
>> int length;
>> char contents[];
>> };
>>
>> be allowed to be passed
Pardon my intrusion on this thread, but if I ever coded anything so
catastrophically hazardous, I'd want to at least be warned about it... if not
slapped on the wrist and told "No No No No NO."
Structures with flexible array members must be created dynamically in order to
allocate proper space
Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> Chris Lattner wrote:
>
These companies really don't care about FOSS in the same way GCC
developers do. I'd be highly confident that this would still be a
serious issue for the majority of the companies
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > I see nothing about passing by value different from structure assignment,
>> > which ignores the flexible array member (see 6.7.2.1 paragraph 22 (in
>> > N1256) for an example stating this). Altho
Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> Chris Lattner wrote:
>
These companies really don't care about FOSS in the same way GCC
developers do. I'd be highly confident that this would still be a
serious issue for the majority of the companies
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > I see nothing about passing by value different from structure assignment,
> > which ignores the flexible array member (see 6.7.2.1 paragraph 22 (in
> > N1256) for an example stating this). Although argument passing and return
> > aren't strictly assignments
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Should
>>
>> struct line {
>> int length;
>> char contents[0];
>> };
>>
>> or
>>
>> struct line {
>> int length;
>> char contents[];
>> };
>>
>> be allowed to be passed
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Should
>
> struct line {
>int length;
>char contents[0];
> };
>
> or
>
> struct line {
>int length;
>char contents[];
> };
>
> be allowed to be passed by value? If yes, how do you access the contents
> field?
I see nothi
Gcc supports zero-length array:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.3.3/gcc/Zero-Length.html#Zero-Length
Should
struct line {
int length;
char contents[0];
};
or
struct line {
int length;
char contents[];
};
be allowed to be passed by value? If yes, how do you ac
On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Chris Lattner wrote:
These companies really don't care about FOSS in the same way GCC
developers do. I'd be highly confident that this would still be
a serious issue for the majority of the companies I've interacted
with through the years.
domi...@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) writes:
> > BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Tuesday, January 27, 2009 -- Today the Free
> > ^
> > Software Foundation (FSF), together with the GCC Steering Committee and the
> >
> I'm referring to the customers where I've personally spent time
> discussing tools issues. Obviously there are exceptions and
> organizations where other motivations come in to play, or are so big
> that they have sub-organizations which look at things from totally
> different viewpoints.
Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Tuesday, January 27, 2009 -- Today the Free
>> ^
>> Software Foundation (FSF), together with the GCC Steering Committee and the
>>^^
On 23 Mar 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Could someone at FSF, directly or through the SC, be kind enough to
> > explain in plain English for non-native speakers why it was so urgent
> > to disrupt the release process for a licence exception.
>
> I don't think any of us know. You would have t
That's fine. It seems that other targets don't have such issue. Our target is
too special and it is
still a private port. I can just use optimize < 1 here. Thanks,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Vladimir Makarov [mailto:vmaka...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 23 March 2009 19:40
> To: Bing
25 matches
Mail list logo
