2011/9/28 Georg-Johann Lay :
> Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
>> This is a tentative patch for better support of logging information for avr
>> BE
>> developers.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> * config/avr/avr-protos.h (avr_edump, avr_fdump): New macros.
>> (avr__set_caller_e, avr__set_caller_f): New pr
Hi all and Cary,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49750
It is a part of former Bug (FIXED):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
currently -fdebug-types-section regresses GDB testsuite for:
FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-struct.exp: print type of X::t2::t2
FAIL: gdb.cp/
Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
> This is a tentative patch for better support of logging information for avr BE
> developers.
>
> [...]
>
> * config/avr/avr-protos.h (avr_edump, avr_fdump): New macros.
> (avr__set_caller_e, avr__set_caller_f): New prototypes.
> * config/avr/avr.c: In
This is a tentative patch for better support of logging information for avr BE
developers.
There are situations where it is more convenient to let the compiler produce
information than to debug into the compiler. One example are -da dumps.
This patch proposes a better support to print information
Hi, looking into PR50448 there is the following C code:
typedef struct
{
unsigned char a,b,c,d;
} SPI_t;
#define SPIE (*(SPI_t volatile*) 0x0AC0)
void foo (void)
{
SPIE.d = 0xAA;
while (!(SPIE.c & 0x80));
SPIE.d = 0xBB;
while (!(SPIE.c & 0x80));
}
At .optimized, the .c and
Thanks a lot. That is exactly what I was looking for!
K
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> I have a question. For DejaGNU we have only one option for each test.
>>
>> It may be e.g. either "dg-do"
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I have a question. For DejaGNU we have only one option for each test.
>
> It may be e.g. either "dg-do" compile or "dg-do run". This is really
> not as suitable
>
> For instance, we cheking some new instructio autogeneration. We
On Monday 26 September 2011, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> As far as I understand it -Warray-bounds should be emitting a warning
> for this case, but PR31227 seemed to be about removing these warnings.
>
> The PR comments do not explain why the array accesses are valid and I'm
> hoping someone ca
Hi folks,
I have a question. For DejaGNU we have only one option for each test.
It may be e.g. either "dg-do" compile or "dg-do run". This is really
not as suitable
For instance, we cheking some new instructio autogeneration. We have
to do 2 tests:
1. We have to write some routine which will co
