Re: Question about macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS in libstdc++ testsuite

2015-05-17 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Jim Wilson wrote: > On 05/17/2015 01:16 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson >> wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Bin.Cheng wrote: Hi, In libstdc++ testsuite, I noticed that macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS is checked/

Re: Question about macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS in libstdc++ testsuite

2015-05-17 Thread Jim Wilson
On 05/17/2015 01:16 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> In libstdc++ testsuite, I noticed that macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS is >>> checked/set by GLIBCXX_CHECK_SETRLIMIT, which is further guarded by >>>

gcc-6-20150517 is now available

2015-05-17 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-6-20150517 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20150517/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision

Re: pre_modify/post_modify with scaled register

2015-05-17 Thread Oleg Endo
On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 11:09 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/17/2015 10:21 AM, Jon Beniston wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The gccint docs for pre_modify/post_modify say that the address modifier > > must be one of three forms: > > > > (plus:m x z), (minus:m x z), or (plus:m x i), where z is an index registe

Re: pre_modify/post_modify with scaled register

2015-05-17 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/17/2015 10:21 AM, Jon Beniston wrote: Hi, The gccint docs for pre_modify/post_modify say that the address modifier must be one of three forms: (plus:m x z), (minus:m x z), or (plus:m x i), where z is an index register and i is a constant. Why isn’t (plus:m x (mult:m z i)) supported, for

pre_modify/post_modify with scaled register

2015-05-17 Thread Jon Beniston
Hi, The gccint docs for pre_modify/post_modify say that the address modifier must be one of three forms: (plus:m x z), (minus:m x z), or (plus:m x i), where z is an index register and i is a constant. Why isn’t (plus:m x (mult:m z i)) supported, for architectures that support scaling of the inde

Re: [x86-64-psABI] RFC: Add R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and R_X86_64_RELAX_PLT32

2015-05-17 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> I will clarify in the spec language. Yes, that is the intention for both >> R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and R_X86_64_RELAX_PLT32. That is what >> is implemented on users/hjl/relax branch. >> > > Her

Re: Question about macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS in libstdc++ testsuite

2015-05-17 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> In libstdc++ testsuite, I noticed that macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS is >> checked/set by GLIBCXX_CHECK_SETRLIMIT, which is further guarded by >> GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE as below: >> >> AC_DEFUN([GLI