On Thu, Feb 7, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Arnaud Charlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having a tutorial during the GCC summit on Ada and how some of its constructs
> stress more than other languages the back-end in some cases sounds indeed
> like a very good idea, so we will work on this, thanks for the s
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I am mostly interested in the Ada <-> middle-end interaction, specially
> where Adas requirements on the middle-end exceed that of C, and how this
> is currently handled. [...]
Thanks. There is indeed a lot to say/discuss on that ground and we'd
certainly be very happy
Having a tutorial during the GCC summit on Ada and how some of its constructs
stress more than other languages the back-end in some cases sounds indeed
like a very good idea, so we will work on this, thanks for the suggestion!
Arno
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > (anyone for an Ada tutorial during the summit? ;)
> >
> > (I wish I didn't see that smiley, because)
> > For practical reasons, I'd agree that's a very good idea!
> >
> > I mean, those (hopefully "we") who attend could presumably hear
> > about some s
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > (anyone for an Ada tutorial during the summit? ;)
> >
> > (I wish I didn't see that smiley, because)
> > For practical reasons, I'd agree that's a very good idea!
> >
> > I mean, those (hopefully "we") who attend could presumably hear
> > about som
On Feb 6, 2008 9:02 PM, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which would be more interesting: a tutorial on the Ada language itself or
> on the "demands" it places on GCC?
I would say that both tutorials sound interesting ;-)
When I first heard a tutorial on the Ada language, I found it ve
> > (anyone for an Ada tutorial during the summit? ;)
>
> (I wish I didn't see that smiley, because)
> For practical reasons, I'd agree that's a very good idea!
>
> I mean, those (hopefully "we") who attend could presumably hear
> about some subset that relates to GCC developers, instead of
> goi
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> (anyone for an Ada tutorial during the summit? ;)
(I wish I didn't see that smiley, because)
For practical reasons, I'd agree that's a very good idea!
I mean, those (hopefully "we") who attend could presumably hear
about some subset that relates to GC
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > I was mainly worried about us trying to for example copy a bit-packed
> > substructure like
> >
> > struct A {
> > unsigned use_1_bit : 1;
> > struct B {
> > char large[100];
> > } b;
> > } a, b;
> >
> > where b.large[0] is at offset 1 bit
> I was mainly worried about us trying to for example copy a bit-packed
> substructure like
>
> struct A {
> unsigned use_1_bit : 1;
> struct B {
> char large[100];
> } b;
> } a, b;
>
> where b.large[0] is at offset 1 bit of a (I believe this is possible
> with Ada, right?).
It is poss
> I was mainly worried about us trying to for example copy a bit-packed
> substructure like
>
> struct A {
> unsigned use_1_bit : 1;
> struct B {
> char large[100];
> } b;
> } a, b;
>
> where b.large[0] is at offset 1 bit of a (I believe this is possible
> with Ada, right?).
Actually no,
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I'm not sure what to do about bit-aligned TImode fields
> > for example, or other things that appearantly can be done with Ada
> > (which allows bit-packing).
>
> I think that we can live without TImode bitfields, up to DImode would be fine.
I was mai
> I'm not sure what to do about bit-aligned TImode fields
> for example, or other things that appearantly can be done with Ada
> (which allows bit-packing).
I think that we can live without TImode bitfields, up to DImode would be fine.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Following the old discussions at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-04/msg00096.html
With starting to prototype the proposed MEM_REF scheme I noticed
a few things that I'd like to add. First let me summarize the
idea again. The idea is to unify
Following the old discussions at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-04/msg00096.html
and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-04/msg00096.html
I'd like to get the ball rolling and start implementing a
unified flattened memory access operation for 4.4. Following
my earlier proposal and keeping in mind
15 matches
Mail list logo
