reed kotler writes:
> For extended inline assembly, there are constraints. Some seem to be
> supported by all architectures and some specific to a particular
> architecture.
>
> Where are these defined in gcc source?
>
> Some seem to be in constraints.md and some not.
Machine-specific constraint
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20120224 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20120224/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
For extended inline assembly, there are constraints. Some seem to be
supported by all architectures and some specific to a particular
architecture.
Where are these defined in gcc source?
Some seem to be in constraints.md and some not.
Tia.
Reed
Hi!
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:42:53 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Kaz, is my understanding correct, that I simply use sh64-elf as target,
> > and again the sh-sim board? Should I be setting a specific CPU when
> > configuring GCC, or any other customization?
>
> I used sh6
Over in the pph branch we are having several failures due to
TYPE_CANONICAL and the canonical types table.
Entries of the canonical types table corresponding to user-generated
types get saved on each pre-parsed header. We then read the table back
in and register the hash codes corresponding
This question is not appropriate for this mailing list, questions
about using GCC should be sent to the gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org list,
please take any follow up there, thanks.
On 24 February 2012 08:34, Yang Yueming wrote:
>
> The result of xyz should be "0"，but it is "2468acf123579bc" ,same as xyz =
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For the small case below, there are some redundant PHI expression stmt
> generated, and finally cause back-end generates redundant copy instructions
> due to some reasons around IRA.
>
> int *l, *r, *g;
> void test_func(int n)
> {
>
Yang Yueming writes:
> long long abc = 0x01234567891abcde;
> long long xyz;
...
> xyz = abc << 65;
...
> The result of xyz should be "0"，but it is "2468acf123579bc" ,same as
> xyz = abc << 1,Why?
Because the shift operators in C have an undefined result when the
shift-count is larger than
Case:
#include
#include
long long abc = 0x01234567891abcde;
long long xyz;
int main ()
{
xyz = abc << 65;
printf("%llx\n", xyz);
return 0;
}
The result of xyz should be "0"，but it is "2468acf123579bc" ,same as xyz = abc
<< 1,Why?
So as for "i
Hi,
For the small case below, there are some redundant PHI expression stmt
generated, and finally cause back-end generates redundant copy instructions
due to some reasons around IRA.
int *l, *r, *g;
void test_func(int n)
{
int i;
static int j;
static int pos, direction, di
10 matches
Mail list logo
