Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Justin P. Mattock" writes:
wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0
right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1
on 4.5.0.
will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added.
http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/09/2009 06:33 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > From: "David Edelsohn"
> >
> >> AIX Shell is KSH.
> >>
> >> The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
> >> shell used by configure.
> >
> > Hm, the mpc configure script actually
"Justin P. Mattock" writes:
> wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0
> right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1
> on 4.5.0.
> will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added.
> http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch
You might do better to as
Quoting Grigori Fursin :
> I am a bit confused about your above example - you suggest to add
this functionality on top of current ICI or substitute it?
The idea was to replace it. The current event implementation has two
issues:
- It is very different from the existing GCC 4.5 events which ma
Dave Korn wrote:
Justin Mattock wrote:
==1830== Command: c++ -o jsxml.o -c -DOSTYPE="Linux2.6" -DOSARCH=Linux
Ah, you're running it on the "c++" utility and it's reporting the stats for
that, but how it works is that "c++" (and "gcc", "g++", et al) is just a
driver, that parses
I know very well the spirit of MinGW, it want to provide a native Win32
development evrionment.
The issue is : many of the host tools have not been ported or very hard to
be ported to pure MinGW/Win32 environment, for example, bash. This is why
Msys exist. Msys essensially a fork of Cygwin 1.3.
hello,
wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0
right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1
on 4.5.0.
will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added.
http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch
Justin P. Mattock
Now all code needs to be exposed to this. ie libiberty and
gcc. To fit in with the new style of building, I basically want
to update ansidecl.h to do a:
#ifdef PUREISO
#include "mshort.h"
#endif
Does that seem reasonable?
The ISO C99 standard requires that an identifier have 31 significant
i
Hi Joern,
> > I think we could have the ICI event flexibility/stability with lower
> > overhead if the event sender requests an event identifier number (which
> > can be allocated after the numbers of the gcc 4.5 static event enum values)
> > for an event name at or before the first event with tha
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I need to pass a tree node (section name from processing pragmas)
> from C frontend to main GCC body (used in TARGET_INSERT_ATTRIBUTES).
> I store the node in a global pointer array delcared in target.c.
> But the tree node is garbage collected in the end of c-parser
> p
Quoting Joern Rennecke :
I think we could have the ICI event flexibility/stability with lower
overhead if the event sender requests an event identifier number (which
can be allocated after the numbers of the gcc 4.5 static event enum values)
for an event name at or before the first event with tha
I actually already did put it as a fixed register using the
FIXED_REGISTER macro. However, I have not yet tested the EPILOGUE_USES
because it said that : "The stack and frame pointer are already
assumed to be used as needed".
My current port defines a different FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM from the
HARD_F
Hello,
I need to pass a tree node (section name from processing pragmas)
from C frontend to main GCC body (used in TARGET_INSERT_ATTRIBUTES).
I store the node in a global pointer array delcared in target.c.
But the tree node is garbage collected in the end of c-parser
pass, and causes an ICE later
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>> you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in
>>> commercial use.
>>
>> You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like
>
> I just went and looked ... you are correct, they have three levels in
>
>> you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in
>> commercial use.
>
> You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like
I just went and looked ... you are correct, they have three levels in
fact. It looks like $1080 for premium, $720 is standard business
Dennis Clarke writes:
> > Eric Botcazou writes:
> >
> >> > I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
> >> > to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
> >> > of the OS versions are outdated.
> >> >
> >> > I've included the list from the page
On 11/09/2009 06:13 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
Ok i have comparison patterns written in RImode. When you say that i
will wind up with a selection of patterns do you mean to say that i
should have patterns for operations that operate on full 40bits in
RImode and disable the corresponding SImode p
"Paul Edwards" writes:
> Now all code needs to be exposed to this. ie libiberty and
> gcc. To fit in with the new style of building, I basically want
> to update ansidecl.h to do a:
>
> #ifdef PUREISO
> #include "mshort.h"
> #endif
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
The ISO C99 standard requires t
> Eric Botcazou writes:
>
>> > I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
>> > to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
>> > of the OS versions are outdated.
>> >
>> > I've included the list from the page
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/cri
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> How can I force the prologue to keep this instruction. It is useless
> only in the case that there is no function call or no alloca. But I
> have a case where there is a function call and it is still removed.
Make the hard frame pointer register a fixed register,
Eric Botcazou writes:
> > I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
> > to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
> > of the OS versions are outdated.
> >
> > I've included the list from the page
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
Mohamed Shafi writes:
>Ok the constrain for address register is 'a'. Thats typo in the
> pattern that i given here. The proper pattern is
>
> (define_insn "*saddl"
>[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=a,d")
>(plus:SI (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "a,d
Yes I understand. I'm trying to give multiple options to the users in
order to either have this enabled or not actually.
I'm running into one issue. In order for this to work, it would be
better if I could keep the top of the frame and the stack pointer in
two separate registers. This way, whateve
Still making great progress.
The process is being simplified.
I have a question. I need to remap long names to short, and I
wish to use #defines to do this as it is portable.
So I have a whole lot of:
#define align_functions ZZZ_1
#define align_functions_log ZZZ_2
etc
and I have put them al
> After checking in the patch to provide unique pass names for all passes,
> I created
>
> svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/ici-20091108-branch
>
> and merged in the patches from:
>
> http://gcc-ici.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gcc-ici/branches/patch-gcc-4.4.0-ici-2.0
By the way, not to forget
徐持恒 wrote:
> Thank you, I'll give it a try.
>
> But can you tell me why there are no testresult of MinGW or Cygwin on
> gcc-testresults mailinglist ?
That's not correct. I haven't done it for a few weeks because I've been
busy on other stuff, but Christian J. is still posting them regularly fo
Hi Joern,
> After checking in the patch to provide unique pass names for all passes,
> I created
>
> svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/ici-20091108-branch
>
> and merged in the patches from:
>
> http://gcc-ici.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gcc-ici/branches/patch-gcc-4.4.0-ici-2.0
>
> Could you
2009/10/22 Richard Henderson :
> On 10/21/2009 07:25 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>>
>> For accessing a->b GCC generates the following code:
>>
>> move.l (sp-16), d3
>> lsrr.l #<16, d3
>> move.l (sp-12),d2
>> asll #<16,d2
>> or d3,d2
>> cmpeq.w #<2,d
Dave Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 18:05 +, Ian Bolton wrote:
> > I think I may have made a breakthrough!
> >
> > As mentioned above, IRA is correctly increasing the cost for TOP_REGS
> > when an allocno in region 1 is being used in one of our special
> > instructions that needs BOTTOM_
2009/11/6 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Mohamed Shafi writes:
>
>> It is generating with data registers. Here is the pattern that i have
>> written:
>>
>>
>> (define_insn "*saddl"
>> [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=r,d")
>> (plus:SI (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 07:47, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> So I don't believe you ;) Even with 400 thousand cgraph nodes
> you'd run out of virtual memory on 32bits unless the cgraph
> node size on 32bit is less than 10 bytes which it is of course not ...
You are right. I was thinking 400k, not 4
2009/11/6 Richard Henderson :
> On 11/06/2009 05:29 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>>
>> The target that i am working on has 1& 2 bit shift-add patterns.
>> GCC is not generating shift-add patterns when the shift count is 1. It
>> is currently generating add operations. What should be done to
>> gen
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 18:03, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the question is when not to use -flto and use -fwhopr instead?
>
> I don't think anyone has systematically tried to determine these
> limits. The original design tried
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 18:03, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
> Perhaps the question is when not to use -flto and use -fwhopr instead?
I don't think anyone has systematically tried to determine these
limits. The original design tried to address a specific instance of a
program with about 400 millio
2009/11/9 Kai Ruottu :
> I myself would be more interested to get these tests for MinGW-hosted
> tools to work on Linux because that is
> the "preferred build platform for MinGW-hosted tools" for me. Some years
> ago I produced more than 100
> binutils+GCC+GDB/Insight toolchains for all kind of tar
徐持恒 wrote:
> These days, I’m trying to build gcc-4.4.2 + binutils-2.20 + gmp + mpfr in
> Msys+MinGW and Cygwin environment.
>
> The builds on both environments are OK, but I cannot run "make check", or
> "make check-gcc".
>
> Finally, I found, that, to run test, you must first install guile, autoge
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 11/09/2009 12:03 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>> is gcc-trunk -flto -O2 aimed for medium sized programs (something like
>> bash), or for bigger ones (something like the linux kernel, the Xorg
>> server, the Qt or GTK graphical toolkit l
On 11/09/2009 12:03 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> is gcc-trunk -flto -O2 aimed for medium sized programs (something like
> bash), or for bigger ones (something like the linux kernel, the Xorg
> server, the Qt or GTK graphical toolkit libraries, or bootstrapping GCC
> itself.
My understanding i
On 11/09/2009 06:33 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: "David Edelsohn"
AIX Shell is KSH.
The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
shell used by configure.
Hm, the mpc configure script actually has a check for shell +=, and on
my solaris box it correctly detects tha
39 matches
Mail list logo
