On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:19:51PM -0500, Omar Torres wrote:
> Since implementing 64-bit support for this target is out of the
> question in the immediate future, I am in the look for an alternative
> solution.
Can't you just emit library calls for all the 64 bit operations, and
get inefficient b
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Omar Torres wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Can you or someone else tak
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Omar Torres wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>>> Oh my goodness, that
Paul Schlie wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Omar Torres wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>>
>>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>> Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also inc
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Omar Torres wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>
>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>
> Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as
> far as I ca
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is in fact defined as 32-bit in the port I am
>> working. I inherited this GCC port, so I do not now whether or not
>> this is fully compliant with C99 standard.
>
> You do now.
Yes, thanks.
>
>> I
Omar Torres wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Omar Torres wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>>
>>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Omar Torres wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>>
>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
>
> Oh my goodness, that is
Omar Torres wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
>
> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as
far as I can see: LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is nev
Hi Andrew,
Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it?
Thanks!
-Omar
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Omar Torres wrote:
>
>> I have a similar issue
Omar Torres wrote:
> I have a similar issue to what is reported here
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20143):
> /Applications/avr/avr-src/gcc/unwind.h:59: error: unable to emulate 'DI'
>
> As you clearly expressed by Paul, the underline issue that the target
> only support data type
11 matches
Mail list logo