On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:40 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > It turns out that different functions are used :
> > - my 4.4 implementation takes its multiply code from dp-bit.c
> > - the 4.1 implementation takes it from ieee754-df.S
> >
> > I've now tweaked gcc/config/arm/t-wince-pe (to use _arm_muldi
> Your code uses the (one and only) CRC-32 polynomial 0x04c11db7, so just
> describing it as the "CRC-32" function should be sufficient documentation.
> It's the same CRC function as used by PKZIP, Ethernet, and chksum.
> It's not compatible with the Intel CRC32 instruction which uses the
> CRC-32
DJ Delorie writes:
>I didn't reference the web site for the polynomial, just for background.
>To be honest, I'm not sure what the polynomial is. As the comments
>explain, the algorithm I used is precisely taken from gdb, in remote.c,
>and is intended to produce the same result. Does anybody on th
So... It's been a long journey, but I think I'm at a point in which,
even though VTA is not completely finished, it's already enough of an
improvement that it could go in, be useful and get wider testing.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the concerns and objections that
were raised have alread
--
Caso voc� n�o queira mais receber e-mail desta newsletter, acesse
http://onlyquality.com.br/marketing/?p=unsubscribe&uid=959f4ec3883353db0d672a826cb4459b
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
--
Caso voc� n�o queira mais receber e-mail desta newsletter, acesse
http://onlyquality.com.br/marketing/?p=unsubscribe&uid=2e5ed1f25a5b18da67114f6d1f558338
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Tim Crook wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> I am trying to track down a problem with gcc 4.1 which has to do with
> inlining and templates on PowerPC. Is there any documentation I can look
> related to the output generated with -fdump? I am getting extraneous lwz
> (loa
Hello there.
I am trying to track down a problem with gcc 4.1 which has to do with inlining
and templates on PowerPC. Is there any documentation I can look related to the
output generated with -fdump? I am getting extraneous lwz (load word and zero
extend) instructions inserted when calling var
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> It seems to me that e-mail to gcc-b...@gcc.gnu.org is basically lost
> in the noise. It seems to me that we should not recommend that people
> send bug reports there; the chances that anything will happen are much
> smaller than the already small cha
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
Indeed an alternative approach to handling this problem in GCC would
be to adapt the Ada model for C and C++ which would not be too hard
to do I suspect. Then gcc could be improved to handle this model
better and more e
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > If an operation that overflows has been carried out, may the AIR abstract
> > machine then trap at any future time (if the implementation has moved or
> > copied the relevant operation to that future time)?
>
> I think th
Hello
We want to know what are TREE_CODES and TREE_TYPES;we were
trying to do the assignment in gimple pass, we got a code which checks the
number of assignment statements but now we want to check the deceleration
statements we browsed through the tree.def , tree.h and tree.c file
Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
Angelo Graziosi writes:
What it the best? DPD or BID?
You neglected to mention which version of gcc you are building. The
decimal float support is relatively new.
Oops... it is the most updated for 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5
If you are using an x86 processor, as you
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Indeed an alternative approach to handling this problem in GCC would
> be to adapt the Ada model for C and C++ which would not be too hard
> to do I suspect. Then gcc could be improved to handle this model
> better and more effectively with r
Ben Elliston wrote:
This thread is off-topic for the GCC mailing list. Please follow up on
gnu.misc.discuss or some other suitable forum.
it is also full of appalling misinformation, so I suggest everyone
delete it! There is good reason for keeping such threads off the list.
Thanks,
Ben
Dave Korn wrote:
" AIR Integers do not require Ada-style precise traps, which require that an
exception is raised every time there is an integer overflow. In the AIR
integer model, it is acceptable to delay catching an incorrectly represented
value until an observation point is reached just be
> "Basile" == Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
[...]
Basile> /usr/local/lib/gcc-trunk/../lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.12-gdb.py
Basile> I would believe that it is the wrong place to install such a file. (In
Basile> particular it makes ldconfig unhappy, when /usr/local/lib/lib64 is
Basile> scanned).
B
Markus L writes:
> I have a question about modelling of condition codes in GCC. The
> target I am considering has the following characteristics:
>
> Associated with each register is a set of CC flags that are updated
> whenever that register is used as a destination of an operation that
> would n
Angelo Graziosi writes:
> What it the best? DPD or BID?
The question is not appropriate for the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list,
which is for gcc developers. It would be appropriate for
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. Please take any followups to gcc-help. Thanks.
You neglected to mention which version o
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
I would believe that it is the wrong place to install such a file. (In
particular it makes ldconfig unhappy, when /usr/local/lib/lib64 is
scanned).
In what way does it make ldconfig unhappy? My /usr/lib directory has a
number of f
This discussion is offtopic for the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list.
Please send replies directly to me or to gnu-misc-discuss.
Adel Abushaev writes:
> GPL is viral, one drop of it will make everything else GPL, especially
> when you redistribute the code.
Please try to avoid using words like "vi
Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
> I would believe that it is the wrong place to install such a file. (In
> particular it makes ldconfig unhappy, when /usr/local/lib/lib64 is
> scanned).
In what way does it make ldconfig unhappy? My /usr/lib directory has a
number of files which are not shared libr
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:40 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 14:51 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:06 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > > Danny Backx wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, D
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:43, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> This merge brings in unit-at-a-time gimplification, so it needed some
>> tweaking. Mostly, it helped to find out some GENERIC that was leaking
>> into the streamer. A pleasant side-effect of the unit-at-a-time
>> gimplification is that not ever
> This merge brings in unit-at-a-time gimplification, so it needed some
> tweaking. Mostly, it helped to find out some GENERIC that was leaking
> into the streamer. A pleasant side-effect of the unit-at-a-time
> gimplification is that not every function is gimplified, so there is
> less gunk to p
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 14:51 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:06 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > Danny Backx wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kai Ruottu wrote :
> > > >> Compa
This merge brings in unit-at-a-time gimplification, so it needed some
tweaking. Mostly, it helped to find out some GENERIC that was leaking
into the streamer. A pleasant side-effect of the unit-at-a-time
gimplification is that not every function is gimplified, so there is
less gunk to pickle out
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:06 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Danny Backx wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> > > Kai Ruottu wrote :
> > >> Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0
> >
On 07/24/2009 02:06 PM, Martin Guy wrote:
The source of gcc uses both, fputc and putc. I would like to do some
janitorial work and change fputc to putc.
putc and fputc have different semantics:
fputc is guaranteed to be a function while putc may be a macro.
True, but does this
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:20:16AM -0700, pms wrote:
> But I want to know what are the TREE_CODEs for other remaing constructs
> viz declration stmt, conditions, count for constants and how to use them in
> the gimple pass. Can anybody help in this regard
The names are defined in tree.def.
-Na
Hi,
I've written a gimple pass, which counts for the number of assignment
statements in the c code. I've used the lval of the GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT and
checking for VAR_DECL condition. It is working
But I want to know what are the TREE_CODEs for other remaing constructs
viz declration stmt, co
On 7/24/09, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> The source of gcc uses both, fputc and putc. I would like to do some
> janitorial work and change fputc to putc.
putc and fputc have different semantics:
fputc is guaranteed to be a function while putc may be a macro.
M
"He who has nothing to do, combs dog
Kai Tietz wrote:
> * gnu/java/security/jce/prng/natVMSecureRandomWin32.cc: New Win32
> specific implementation.
> + (JvNewStringLatin1 ("Error function not implemented for Win32
> target."));
That's slightly ambiguous; it needs a colon after 'Error', to make clear it
isn'
As further comments, it's unfortunate that this document has chosen
certain badly thought out basis documents and concepts.
On page 13 you have a short table of "critical undefined behavior" and an
attempt to define "bounded undefined behavior", that ignore all my
previous comments in this area
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> If an operation that overflows has been carried out, may the AIR abstract
> machine then trap at any future time (if the implementation has moved or
> copied the relevant operation to that future time)?
I think that's answered on p.12 isn't it?
" AIR Integers do n
Robert Seacord wrote:
Hi Robert,
> Source code for the As GCC 4.4.0 and GCC 4.5.0 (svn) prototypes can be
> downloaded form:
>
> http://www.cert.org/secure-coding/integralsecurity.html
Since you've got a version based off SVN, can you possibly post up a diff as
well as a full archive of the
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Robert Seacord wrote:
> A PDF Download of this paper is available at:
>
> http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/09.reports/09tn023.html
This model still seems extremely poorly defined. The only sensible way to
fix this is a careful definition of the AIR abstract
Trying to build gcc-4.5-20090723 on Cygwin 1.5, configuring with:
${gcc_dir}/configure --prefix="${prefix_dir}" \
--exec-prefix="${eprefix_dir}" \
--sysconfdir="${sysconf_dir}" \
--libdir="${lib_dir}" \
--libexecdir="${libexec_dir}" \
--mandir="${man_dir}"
Hello,
This patch adds dummy implementation for
gnu/java/security/jce/prng/natVMSecureRandomWin32.cc file for Win32 build.
It throws just an exception for not supporting this method.
ChangeLog
2009-07-24 Kai Tietz
* gnu/java/security/jce/prng/natVMSecureRandomWin32.cc: New Win32
Hi,
I have a question about modelling of condition codes in GCC. The
target I am considering has the following characteristics:
Associated with each register is a set of CC flags that are updated
whenever that register is used as a destination of an operation that
would normally update the CC reg
I have seen that when I build, on Cygwin (1.5), configuring as:
--
${gcc_dir}/configure --prefix="${prefix_dir}" \
--exec-prefix="${eprefix_dir}" \
--sysconfdir="${sysconf_dir}" \
--libdir="${lib_dir}" \
--libexecdir="${libexec_dir}" \
-
Hello!
The source of gcc uses both, fputc and putc. I would like to do some
janitorial work and change fputc to putc.
The reason is, that in system.h, both of them get redefined to the
corresponding unlock function:
# ifdef HAVE_PUTC_UNLOCKED
# undef putc
# define putc(C, Stream) putc_unlocked
The Secure Coding Initiative at CERT has published a new Technical Note
CMU/SEI-2009-TN-023 entitled "As-if Infinitely Ranged Integer Model".
Abstract:
Integer overflow and wraparound are major causes of software vulnerabilities in
the C and C++ programming languages. In this paper we present
On Jul 24, 2009, graham_k wrote:
> Can someone tell me definitively - if I use a ten line GPLed function, say
> quicksort, in 500,000 lines of code which I write myself, do I need to GPL
> all of my source code and make the ode free for all?
The FSF offers an e-mail based service to answer this
44 matches
Mail list logo
