On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 07:06 +0200, Stephane Wirtel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to know how many stages are there ?
> What's the first stage ?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
-eric
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 10:06 PM, Stephane Wirtel wrote:
I would like to know how many stages are there ?
What's the first stage ?
Denial, wait, or was that the last one... :-)
Click on Stage 1 on our web site, then read...
We could allow different amounts of aggregation other than 0% or
100%; that might help some builds.
Per-directory could be useful to the guys using the static library, too.
But what Per is talking about is how .o files are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already ha
We could allow different amounts of aggregation other than 0% or
100%; that might help some builds.
Per-directory could be useful to the guys using the static library, too.
But what Per is talking about is how .o files are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already ha
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 15:58 +0400, Nadezhda IvanÐvna Vyukova wrote:
> The __builtin_isless, __builtin_islessequal functions are provided as
> implementations of standard C99 functions 'isless', 'isgreater'. Please,
> explain why gcc for mips implements them via instructions
>
> c.lt.FMT and
Canqun Yang wrote:
Hi, all,
Is there anyone familiar with the check routine
check_ext_dependent_givs defined loop.c, and give me
an example explaining why it is needed.
You should not look at loop.c to modify it, because it will hopefully
disappear before 4.1.
But basically, that function looks
Hi,
I am facing a situation where a gcc_assert call that checks for some
properties of a rtx expression, say "op", triggers an ICE (see below). I'd
like to have a look the rtx that triggers this error. For this reason, I'd
like to know whether there exists a helper function for writing to stdou
Rutger Ovidius writes:
> Thursday, May 5, 2005, 1:16:05 PM, you wrote:
>
> RH> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> The savings of creating static libraries would be small if we
> >> refrained from building non-PIC object files.
>
> RH> But still largely us
On Friday, May 6, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Björn Haase wrote:
I'd like to have a look the rtx that triggers this error.
p x
pr
in gdb. See gcc/gdbinit.in for yet more functions.
Consider the following short program:
#include
void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
{
for (int x=0; x
Nadezhda Ivanоvna Vyukova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The __builtin_isless, __builtin_islessequal functions are provided as
> implementations of standard C99 functions 'isless', 'isgreater'. Please,
> explain why gcc for mips implements them via instructions
>
> c.lt.FMT and
> c.le.FMT
Original Message
>From: Björn Haase
>Sent: 06 May 2005 08:57
> like to know whether there exists a helper function for writing to stdout
> which kind of rtx "op" actually is. I.e. some function like
> "print_rtx_to_stdout" or "print_rtx_to_file" that could be used when
> debugging the comp
Best thanks for your fast reply!
... did not know that gdb has support for printing RTX. *VERY* useful feature
(and much better than temporary including debugging printout commands in the
compiler itself :-) ).
Yours,
Björn
Original Message
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 06 May 2005 12:06
> Best thanks for your fast reply!
>
Glad to help! :)
> ... did not know that gdb has support for printing RTX. *VERY* useful
> feature (and much better than temporary including debugging printout
> commands in the com
"Michael Cieslinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Consider the following short program:
|
| #include
|
| void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
| {
| for (int x=0; xhttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
for missed optimization.
-- Gaby
Michael Cieslinski wrote:
Consider the following short program:
#include
void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
{
for (int x=0; x
MinP[x] = SrcP[x]
}
void Tst2(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
On May 6, 2005, at 9:27 AM, chris jefferson wrote:
Michael Cieslinski wrote:
Consider the following short program:
#include
void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP,
int Len)
{
for (int x=0; x
MinP[x] = SrcP[x]
}
void Tst2(short* __restr
On May 6, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Björn Haase wrote:
Hi,
I am facing a situation where a gcc_assert call that checks for some
properties of a rtx expression, say "op", triggers an ICE (see below).
I'd
like to have a look the rtx that triggers this error. For this reason,
I'd
like to know whether there
Friday, May 6, 2005, 1:33:32 AM, you wrote:
AH> Rutger Ovidius writes:
>> Thursday, May 5, 2005, 1:16:05 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> RH> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> The savings of creating static libraries would be small if we
>> >> refrained from building
Rutger Ovidius writes:
> Friday, May 6, 2005, 1:33:32 AM, you wrote:
>
> AH> I don't think that anyone is proposing to drop static libraries on
> AH> Win32. Win32 systems have their own requirements that make static
> AH> libs preferable in some cases. On GNU systems, however, static libs
Hi Rutger,
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 07:24 -0700, Rutger Ovidius wrote:
> AH> I don't think that anyone is proposing to drop static libraries on
> AH> Win32. Win32 systems have their own requirements that make static
> AH> libs preferable in some cases. On GNU systems, however, static libs
> AH> mak
Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> But what Per is talking about is how .o files
are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already have done this
in a place or two where we've needed BC ABI support.
As long as libtool supports it, it should not be very difficult indeed.
It semi-s
Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:
AH> Rutger Ovidius writes:
>> Friday, May 6, 2005, 1:33:32 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> AH> I don't think that anyone is proposing to drop static libraries on
>> AH> Win32. Win32 systems have their own requirements that make static
>> AH> libs preferable
Hi Mark,
> Hi Rutger,
>
> On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 07:24 -0700, Rutger Ovidius wrote:
> > AH> I don't think that anyone is proposing to drop static libraries on
> > AH> Win32. Win32 systems have their own requirements that make static
> > AH> libs preferable in some cases. On GNU systems, however,
Rutger Ovidius writes:
> Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:
>
> AH> But Java isn't compatible with static linking. Java is, by its very
> AH> nature, a dynamic language, where classes invoke and even generate
> AH> other classes on the fly. There is no way when linking to determine
Le Vendredi 06 Mai 2005 09:16, Eric Christopher a écrit :
> On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 07:06 +0200, Stephane Wirtel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to know how many stages are there ?
> >
> > What's the first stage ?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
>
> -eric
Thanks Eric
Friday, May 6, 2005, 9:14:31 AM, you wrote:
AH> Rutger Ovidius writes:
>> Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> AH> But Java isn't compatible with static linking. Java is, by its very
>> AH> nature, a dynamic language, where classes invoke and even generate
>> AH> other classes
Per Bothner wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> But what Per is talking about is how .o files
are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already have done this
in a place or two where we've needed BC ABI support.
As long as libtool supports it, it should not be very difficu
On 2005-05-06, at 18:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
Rutger Ovidius writes:
Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:
AH> But Java isn't compatible with static linking. Java is, by
its very
AH> nature, a dynamic language, where classes invoke and even
generate
AH> other classes on the fly. There is
Hi,
I am currently working on GCC Instruction Scheduling pass. The previous
versions of GCC, from GCC-3.3 onwards, had the provision to insert NOP-rtl
appropriately during Instruction Scheduling pass(haifa.c : schedule_block).
This is required for machine-architectures which do not support
hardw
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 04:06:49PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Rutger Ovidius writes:
> > Java is a simple language, used as the intro learning language in most
> > universities that I know of. Not having to plan memory management like
> > c++ motivates very fast development. Compiling small ut
> "Matt" == Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> I'd like to libjava be split into multiple shared libraries.
Matt> In C, we have libc, libm, libpthread, etc. In X11, there's X11, Xt, etc.
Matt> So why does java have everything in one shared library? Could
Matt> the swing stuff be m
> "David" == David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Perhaps the crazy person that only needs 2MB worth of the files from
David> said static library when the corresponding shared library is
David> 8MB. Especially if this lunatic is trying to make the program, OS
David> kernel etc fit in
--- Tom Tromey wrote:
> I'm not sure what Plan B would be. Maybe separate
> libgcj releases
> somehow.
You coulder consider just having GCJ inside GCC but
somehow get it to use GNU Classpath directly, this
would also reduce it needing to be re-sync with GNU
Classpath (which I beleive libgcj is ba
I just released 2 new releases for gcc-3.3.6 and gcc-4.0.0 of my
bounds-checking patch.
The patches can be found on http://sourceforge.net/projects/boundschecking
Can some one update the extension page (http://gcc.gnu.org/extensions.html).
This page still points to http://web.inter.NL.net/hcc/Haj
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
> I just released 2 new releases for gcc-3.3.6 and gcc-4.0.0 of my
> bounds-checking patch.
> The patches can be found on http://sourceforge.net/projects/boundschecking
>
> Can some one update the extension page (http://gcc.gnu.org/extensions.html).
> T
> The problem with C++ is in fold as we now have to disable the
> optimization
> which converted "a >= b ? b : a" to MIN_EXPR.
Which begs the question of why it doesn't happen when we get into
the tree optimizers and have lvalues there.
r~
Hello,
when working on the AVR target I stepped over the follwoing issue (IMO not
urgent but still bearing quite some potential of improvement):
When implementing "lowering" of SImode and HImode expressions to QImode
sequences by splitters after reload, quite a number of new optimization
oppor
>
> Hello,
>
> when working on the AVR target I stepped over the follwoing issue (IMO not
> urgent but still bearing quite some potential of improvement):
>
> When implementing "lowering" of SImode and HImode expressions to QImode
> sequences by splitters after reload, quite a number of new op
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
I just released 2 new releases for gcc-3.3.6 and gcc-4.0.0 of my
bounds-checking patch.
The patches can be found on http://sourceforge.net/projects/boundschecking
Can some one update the extension page (http://gcc.gnu.org/extensi
I was wondering if anyone could tell me how to write an (empty)
instruction pattern that does a truncate/extend conversion on a register
'in place'.
All the conversions I see are like this one in ia64/ia64.md:
(define_insn "extendsfdf2"
[(set (match_operand:DF 0 "fr_register_operand" "=f")
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:59:06PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> My attempt:
>
> (define_insn "nop_extendsfdf"
> [(set (match_operand:DF 0 "fr_register_operand" "+f")
> (unspec:DF [(match_dup:SF 0)] UNSPEC_NOP_EXTEND))]
> ""
> ""
> [(set_attr "itanium_class" "ignore")
>(set_attr
> Steve Ellcey writes:
Steve> I was wondering if anyone could tell me how to write an (empty)
Steve> instruction pattern that does a truncate/extend conversion on a register
Steve> 'in place'.
See extendsfdf2_fpr in rs6000.md
David
> You might want to try this instead:
>
> [(set (match_operand:DF 0 "fr_register_operand" "=f")
> (unspec:DF [(match_operand:SF 0 "fr_register_operand" "0")]
> UNSPEC_NOP_EXTEND))]
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery, LLC
Nope. GCC doesn't like seeing two match_operand's for o
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Björn Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> when working on the AVR target I stepped over the follwoing issue
>> (IMO not urgent but still bearing quite some potential of improvement):
>>
>> When implementing "lowering" of SImode and HImode expressions
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:38:30PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > You might want to try this instead:
> >
> > [(set (match_operand:DF 0 "fr_register_operand" "=f")
> > (unspec:DF [(match_operand:SF 0 "fr_register_operand" "0")]
> > UNSPEC_NOP_EXTEND))]
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Jacobowitz
srcdir/config.guess:
i686-pc-cygwin
gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-cygwin
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --verbose --prefix=/work/install
--exec-prefix=/work/install --sysconfdir=/work/
install/etc --libdir=/work/install/lib --libexecdir=/work/install/lib
--mandir=/work/in
On PowerPC, we have a test case which results in a mismatch between the
register number used for the return address in the DWARF2 CIE and the
FDE. That causes backtraces to go wonky. The test case is kinda big,
but I'll post it when I get it cut down.
In any case, I can sort-of explain what's
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050506 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050506/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_4-20050506
You'll
On May 6, 2005, at 7:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On PowerPC, we have a test case which results in a mismatch between
the register number used for the return address in the DWARF2 CIE and
the FDE. That causes backtraces to go wonky. The test case is kinda
big, but I'll post it when I get it cut
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On May 6, 2005, at 7:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On PowerPC, we have a test case which results in a mismatch between
the register number used for the return address in the DWARF2 CIE and
the FDE. That causes backtraces to go wonky. The test case is kinda
big, but I'll post
Host: i586-pc-linux-gnu
Hardware: AMD K6-II, 192MB RAM
OS: Slackware 10.1, kernel: 2.6.11.7, glibc-2.3.4, binutils-2.15.92.0.2
Downloads: gcc-core-4.0.0, gcc-g++-4.0.0
Languages: C, C++
Target: i586-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0
$ date > /gcc ;
Hi,
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> You can do it, but apparently restrict isn't as simple as "a and b are
> both restrict pointers and therefore can never alias", because that's
> not the actual definition of restrict. It says stuff about pointers
> "based on" restricted objects, etc.
One of our internal apps fails due to problem in folding of vec_mergeh
of unsigned char of zeros and ones. It produces a new vector of zeros
followed
by ones. I traced the problem to the 3rd operand for the
"altivec_vmrghb" pattern defined in altivec.md file. It is 255 (0xff).
I think it
should
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:18:15PM +0200, Björn Haase wrote:
> When implementing "lowering" of SImode and HImode expressions to QImode
> sequences by splitters after reload, quite a number of new optimization
> opportunities show up that presently are not realized.
No, the real problem is repres
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:59:06PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could tell me how to write an (empty)
> instruction pattern that does a truncate/extend conversion on a register
> 'in place'.
>
> All the conversions I see are like this one in ia64/ia64.md:
>
> (define_ins
56 matches
Mail list logo
