Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110224 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110224/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/23/11 14:47, Lu, John wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to improve the asm code generated for C code like:
>
> long f(long a, long b) {
> _int64 s;
>
> s = (((long long) a) + ((long long) b));
>
> s = (s > 0x7fffL ? (long) 0x7
On 24.02.11 15:38, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote:
On 02/23/2011 09:52 PM, Christian Grössler wrote:
Hello,
I have a problem with register allocation. Our architecture has some
pointer registers "pX" (24bit)
and some data registers "dX" (32bit). Since pointers are only 24bit,
we're using PSImode for t
On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is less
>> than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a subreg write of
>> less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
>>
>> ie, if word_size is SImode and we had a wri
> Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is less
> than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a subreg write of
> less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
>
> ie, if word_size is SImode and we had a write to
>
> (subreg:HI (reg:SI) 0)
>
> Then the upper bits ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/11 10:04, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Funny. As far back as I remember we consistently said that bits of the
> same word, but outside the subreg are left with undefined values after
> storing into the subreg, except if wrapped with a strict_lo
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Target avr suffers from similar problems in 4.3, 4.4 and 4.6 which are
> > all reported against avr backend, not against middleend/rtl optimizers.
> insn 33 and 34 are fine. 33 sets the high part of the HImode register
> to the result of the call to f
DJ Delorie writes:
>> Couldn't GCC (and binutils) on djgpp set
>> _CRT0_FLAG_DISALLOW_RESPONSE_FILES so that GCC's routines get used
>> to expand the response files instead of the runtime's routines?
>
> I suppose it could. I'm not sure how much confusion that would cause
> (probably little if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/11 07:05, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi, I am trying to track down/fix PR target/45291. The problem is that
> pass .subreg1 generates invalid subregs.
>
> According to internals "10.8 Registers and Memory, Normal Subregs"
> a normal (non-parad
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html
>
> There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which
> don't look platform-dependent.
>
> Can you send me the
On 02/23/2011 09:52 PM, Christian Grössler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem with register allocation. Our architecture has some
> pointer registers "pX" (24bit)
> and some data registers "dX" (32bit). Since pointers are only 24bit,
> we're using PSImode for them.
>
> There are restrictions in
> Couldn't GCC (and binutils) on djgpp set
> _CRT0_FLAG_DISALLOW_RESPONSE_FILES so that GCC's routines get used
> to expand the response files instead of the runtime's routines?
I suppose it could. I'm not sure how much confusion that would cause
(probably little if any), but as long as djgpp
On 02/09/2011 08:27 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote:
>> (define_constraint "I"
>> "Signed 6-bit integer constant for binops."
>> (and (match_code "const_int")
>>(match_test "IN_RANGE (ival, -24, 32)")))
>>
>> (define_register_constraint "A" "
Hi, I am trying to track down/fix PR target/45291. The problem is that
pass .subreg1 generates invalid subregs.
According to internals "10.8 Registers and Memory, Normal Subregs"
a normal (non-paradoxical) subreg as Lvalue sets the specifyed subreg
and leaves the remaining part of the target word
On 24/02/2011 03:56, DJ Delorie wrote:
> The GNU "doschk" (in non-gnu/) utility can tell you what's legal and what
> isn't.
>
> http://www.delorie.com/gnu/dl/ftp.gnu.org/non-gnu/doschk/doschk-1.1.tar.gz/doschk-1.1/doschk.c
>
> Note, however, that @files used by gcc *in djgpp* will *not* support
15 matches
Mail list logo
