On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 1/4/10 14:57 , sandeep soni wrote:
>
>> I want to know what is the entry point to the gimplification pass? and
>> given a function body which are the functions in the gcc source that
>> convert the body into equivalent gimple statements?
>
Erik Trulsson wrote:
Moreover I think you are misinterpreting 6.5 clause 7 (which I concede is
fairly easy since it is not quite as unambiguous as one could wish).
I believe that paragraph should not be interpreted as automatically allowing
all accesses that correspond to one of the sorts listed.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> index 407ab59..b349633 100644
>> --- a/configure.ac
>> +++ b/configure.ac
>> @@ -311,10 +311,11 @@ esac
>> # Handle --enable-gold.
>>
>> AC_ARG_ENABLE(gold,
>> -[ --en
Erik Trulsson student.uu.se> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:46:48AM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > The aliasing policies that GCC implements seem to be more strict than
> > what is in the C99 standard. I am wondering if this is true or whether
> > I am mistaken (I am not an expert on the
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:46:48AM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> The aliasing policies that GCC implements seem to be more strict than
> what is in the C99 standard. I am wondering if this is true or whether
> I am mistaken (I am not an expert on the standard, so the latter is
> definitely possi
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 05:01:24PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > why not make this more explicit by adding an option --ld which is
> > directly understood by the gcc driver?
>
> Feel free to send some gcc patches. I see no point in this.
> We have -Wl.
I deal with a lot of host systems where
> why not make this more explicit by adding an option --ld which is
> directly understood by the gcc driver?
Feel free to send some gcc patches. I see no point in this.
We have -Wl.
Roland McGrath writes:
>> Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories
>> with the name ld. Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option.
>> I don't know which approach is best.
>
> I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual
> binaries are a
On 05.01.2010 23:59, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
>> to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
>> runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
>> missing?
>
> It covers the first step by lett
On 05.01.2010 23:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"H.J. Lu" writes:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Roland McGrath writes:
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
runtime. I
> Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories
> with the name ld. Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option.
> I don't know which approach is best.
I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual
binaries are available as ld.bfd and ld.gold.
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100105 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100105/
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/branches
Matt writes:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Matt writes:
>>
>>> Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
>>> implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
>>> --enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
>>> optio
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Roland McGrath writes:
>>
I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
runtime. I don't see how this patch sup
On 2010-01-05 21:29:22 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On the contrary, you haven't even addressed the core issue. 6.3.2.3
> limits the pointer conversions that you may do without undefined
> behaviour. The conversion in your example displays undefined
> behaviour, since it is not permitted by 6.3.2
Hello,
we are a small team and would need your help,just click and you've already
helped.We thanks in advance.
Look at our website:
http://www.fleaser.com
Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/fleaser
Send this message to your friends and help us.
Thanks for your help!
Greetings
Flease
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt writes:
Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
--enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
option would be to break up the enum valu
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Roland McGrath writes:
>
>>> I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
>>> to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
>>> runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
>>>
Roland McGrath writes:
>> I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
>> to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
>> runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
>> missing?
>
> It covers the first step by letting you run "ld.bfd
On 01/05/2010 07:38 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> Robert Dewar adacore.com> writes:
>> In any case the gcc interpretation is clearly what's
>> intended in my view, so if it can be argued that the
>> standard is inconsistent with this interpretation (I
>> am unconvinced that this burden has been met
On 2010-01-05 20:50:38 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 07:58 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > Andrew Haley redhat.com> writes:
> >> but
> >>
> >> (union u*)&i
> >>
> >> is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
> >> behaviour.
> >
> > Your example does not co
Matt writes:
> Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
> implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
> --enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
> option would be to break up the enum values into indivdual #defines
> and do a ty
> I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems
> to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
> runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I
> missing?
It covers the first step by letting you run "ld.bfd" or "ld.gold" to
choose. Havin
On 2010-01-05 16:16:52 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 6.3.2.3 says that one can *convert* the pointer, but not that one can
> > *dereference* it.
>
> You can dereference it if it is defined where (to what object of the
> relevant type) it points, an
On 01/05/2010 07:58 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> Andrew Haley redhat.com> writes:
>> but
>>
>> (union u*)&i
>>
>> is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
>> behaviour.
>
> Your example does not contain a dereference.
>
>> You may only dereference a pointer as permi
Andrew Haley redhat.com> writes:
> but
>
> (union u*)&i
>
> is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
> behaviour.
Your example does not contain a dereference.
> You may only dereference a pointer as permitted by 6.3.2.3.
6.3.2.3 does not mention dereferencing at al
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt writes:
I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx
doesn't bitrot too much. I ran into this issue, and an unsure how to
fix it without really ugly casting:
enum df_changeable_flags
df_set_flags (enum df_changeable_flag
Robert Dewar adacore.com> writes:
> In any case the gcc interpretation is clearly what's
> intended in my view, so if it can be argued that the
> standard is inconsistent with this interpretation (I
> am unconvinced that this burden has been met), then
> the conclusion is to add a clarification to
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> --with is wrong for this. It's not about the ambient system built against.
>> It's a feature selection for how you build binutils, which means --enable.
>>
>
> Here is the updated patch.
I'm still not entirely convinc
I've updated the Microblaze branch to gcc-4.5.
It has passed gcc regression tests reasonably well.
I still have some minor cleanup to do -- updating
copyright notices, checking indents, and so forth.
What's the best process for merging this into head?
Should I submit a patch?
--
Michael Eager
NightStrike writes:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
>> trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
>
> Is that option regularly tested?
Probably not.
> Will it ever become the defa
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
> trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
Is that option regularly tested?
Will it ever become the default?
Matt writes:
> I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx
> doesn't bitrot too much. I ran into this issue, and an unsure how to
> fix it without really ugly casting:
>
> enum df_changeable_flags
> df_set_flags (enum df_changeable_flags changeable_flags)
> {
> enum df_c
On 01/05/10 01:46, Eric Fisher wrote:
Hi,
I found that sometimes -fno-tree-dominator-opts will bring a big speed
promotion. This is because that pass_dominator tries to thread jumps.
But sometimes this will cause that the loop's exit bb does not
dominator its latch bb again. Then pass_complete_u
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
I've attached what I have so far.
If you want to have documentation extracted from source files, you need to
engage with the SC and FSF at an early stage to get suitable license
exception wording to permit the relevant te
torbenh wrote:
can you please explain, why you reject the idea of -fnoalias ?
msvc has declspec(noalias) icc has -fnoalias
msvc needs it because it doesn't implement restrict and supports
violation of typed aliasing rules as a default. ICL needs it for msvc
compatibility, but has better alt
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote:
> >>
> >> The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Matt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx doesn't
> bitrot too much.
Wasn't that branch already merged to trunk?
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2010-01-05 15:30:11 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
> > > On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> > > > expression
On 2010-01-05 15:29:25 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 03:23 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> >> expression that has one of the following types:
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >
On 2010-01-05 15:30:11 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> > > expression that has one of the following types:
> > >
> > > but
>
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> > expression that has one of the following types:
> >
> > but
> >
> > (union u*)&i
> >
> > is not a legal lvalue expression bec
On 01/05/2010 03:23 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
>> expression that has one of the following types:
>>
>> but
>>
>> (union u*)&i
>>
>> is not a legal lvalue expression because the
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote:
>>
>> The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for user code (they
>> have been historically used from Frontends). If restric
On 2010-01-05 10:31:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> "An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> expression that has one of the following types:
>
> but
>
> (union u*)&i
>
> is not a legal lvalue expression because the dereference is undefined
> behaviour. You may only d
On 1/4/10 14:57 , sandeep soni wrote:
> I want to know what is the entry point to the gimplification pass? and
> given a function body which are the functions in the gcc source that
> convert the body into equivalent gimple statements?
This is controlled from the callgraph manager. You need to s
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote:
>
> The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for user code (they
> have been historically used from Frontends). If restrict doesn't work
> for you (do you have a testcase that
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote:
> > __restrict__ is of no help here. which leads me to the question whats
> > the point of a restricted this pointer ? members of structs arent
> > unaliased by a __restrict__ pointer
Kaufen sie direkt und ver-gessen sie Ihre Entaeuschungen und alle Aengste
die Sie haben.
- Lieferung kostenfrei
- ohne Zollprobleme
- sicher online shoppen.
- Wirkstoffe rein pflanzlich
- diskret verpackt
Nicht mehr zufrueh im Bett abspritzen und das Maedchen enttaeuschen!
Oder andere Maenn
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote:
>
> hi...
>
> i am new to this list.
>
> i am trying to something like:
>
> struct Ramp
> {
> float phase;
> inline float process() { return phase++; }
> } ramp;
>
> void fill_buffer( float *buf, size_t nframes )
> {
> for( size_t i=0; i
hi...
i am new to this list.
i am trying to something like:
struct Ramp
{
float phase;
inline float process() { return phase++; }
} ramp;
void fill_buffer( float *buf, size_t nframes )
{
for( size_t i=0; i
> In summary, multilibs are selected using textual matching of options
> whose logic is largely independent of that used in the compiler proper
> (cc1) to determine what options are enabled when compiling.
This has been an annoyance I've had with multilib processing for a long
time, so I'm very
This discussion prompts me to relate something from
experience in exegesis of the Ada RM.
In Robert's rules of order, there is an overriding
rule that says "none of the other rules in this book
can be used to obfuscate" [don't have my copy here,
so not an exact quote].
Following that line of thi
This message describes problems with how GCC presently handles
multilib selection, and proposes changes (at least some hopefully to
be implemented for GCC 4.6) to fix some of those problems; please let
me know any comments on these proposals.
In summary, multilibs are selected using textual matchi
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 15:42 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
> Hi
>
> In function arm_load_pic_register in file arm.c there are following code:
>
> if (TARGET_ARM)
> {
> ...
> }
> else if (TARGET_THUMB2)
> {
> /* Thumb-2 only allows very limited access
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Eric Fisher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that sometimes -fno-tree-dominator-opts will bring a big speed
> promotion. This is because that pass_dominator tries to thread jumps.
> But sometimes this will cause that the loop's exit bb does not
> dominator its latch bb agai
On 01/05/2010 02:09 AM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> Erik Trulsson student.uu.se> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:17:00PM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
>>> The text you quoted does not contain any "shall not" language about
>>> dereferencing, so this conclusion does not follow.
>>
>> It doesn't
On 01/05/2010 01:15 AM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:17:00PM +, Joshua Haberman wrote:
>> Andrew Haley redhat.com> writes:
>>> On 01/03/2010 10:14 PM, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Andrew Haley redhat.com> writes:
>>> "6.3.2.3
>>>
>>> "A pointer to an object or incomplete t
I propose that we merge Mickael Pettersson's patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00450.html
to have a functional arm-linux port of GNAT in GCC 4.5.
This would yield an Ada compiler with a clean testsuite:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg00419.html
Although it'
Hi,
I found that sometimes -fno-tree-dominator-opts will bring a big speed
promotion. This is because that pass_dominator tries to thread jumps.
But sometimes this will cause that the loop's exit bb does not
dominator its latch bb again. Then pass_complete_unroll is unable to
know the exact number
> In regmove.c there is function "replace_in_call_usage" called in
> fixup_match_1,
> It replaces dst register by src in call_insn, I suspect whether it is
> necessary Since comment of CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE says that no pseudo
> register can appear in it and seems src is pseudo register.
>
> f
61 matches
Mail list logo
