Hi,
Sorry, I didn't see that each identifier *is* a lang_identifier, that's
a weird way to keep bindings. It's not that easy for someone new to GCC
to get around the code. What was the design decision behind that hack
(instead of something like:
struct tree_identifier {
struct tree_common comm
Hi,
As far as I can tell the -fobjc-exceptions flag is supposed to work
with the GNU runtime as of GCC 4.0. However, invoke.texi still states
that "Currently, this option is only available in conjunction with
the NeXT runtime on Mac OS X 10.3 and later." Shouldn't this be
corrected to say
Hi,
I'd doing some coding right before peephole2 pass. I'd like to have a
function that takes rtl as input and returns the values of register
inputs, register output and operator. For example,
input:
(insn 496 34 29 1 (set (reg/f:SI 3 r3 [235])
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 3 r3 [235])
(
On Dec 29, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can tell the -fobjc-exceptions flag is supposed to work
with the GNU runtime as of GCC 4.0. However, invoke.texi still states
that "Currently, this option is only available in conjunction with the
NeXT run
On Dec 29, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Domagoj D wrote:
Sorry, I didn't see that each identifier *is* a lang_identifier,
that's
a weird way to keep bindings. It's not that easy for someone new to
GCC
to get around the code. What was the design decision behind that hack
(instead of something like:
str
Hello:
I was wondering if the team could add the following
targets to GCC\G++\G77:
Basically make it even more crossplatform compiliant
and emulator friendly
eg: add the following cpu series : 8080, z80, 6502,
6800, and cpm/8000? :)
Maybe OS Specific librarys too (eg CP/M-86\CP/M-86
Also does G77
On Dec 29, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
As far as I can tell the -fobjc-exceptions flag is supposed to
work with the GNU runtime as of GCC 4.0. However, invoke.texi
still states that "Currently, this option is only available in
conjunction with the NeXT runtime on Mac OS X 10.3 and
Hi,
> That can't work, not all tree_identifiers have a c_binding, for
> example, java doesn't.
I see.
> Also, not all identifiers in all languages have an ht_identifier,
> again, for example, java doesn't.
Hmm... But tree_identifier in tree.h has an ht_identifier struct. So,
is gcc/tree.h C
On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Dec 29, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
As far as I can tell the -fobjc-exceptions flag is supposed to work
with the GNU runtime as of GCC 4.0. However, invoke.texi still
states that "Currently, this option is only available in conjunct
On Dec 29, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Domagoj D wrote:
Also, not all identifiers in all languages have an ht_identifier,
again, for example, java doesn't.
Hmm... But tree_identifier in tree.h has an ht_identifier struct. So,
is gcc/tree.h C-specific?
Oops, uhm, I mean, just checking to make sure you'
Liu Haibin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd doing some coding right before peephole2 pass. I'd like to have a
> function that takes rtl as input and returns the values of register
> inputs, register output and operator. For example,
>
> input:
> (insn 496 34 29 1 (set (reg/f:SI 3 r3 [235])
>
Matt Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically make it even more crossplatform compiliant
> and emulator friendly
> eg: add the following cpu series : 8080, z80, 6502,
> 6800, and cpm/8000? :)
gcc is driven by volunteer efforts and by paid efforts. The way to
get gcc to support these targe
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Dec 29, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Domagoj D wrote:
| >> Also, not all identifiers in all languages have an ht_identifier,
| >> again, for example, java doesn't.
| >
| > Hmm... But tree_identifier in tree.h has an ht_identifier struct. So,
| > is gcc/tree.h C-sp
I've successfully ported GCC and Newlib to RDOS. It seems to work with a
"hello world" app.
However, my main focus is not C, but C++.
I found out that libstdc++ didn't compile without modifying it's
configuration files to support RDOS.
Where do I send patches for libstdc++? To this list?
Howe
On Dec 29, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I believe, but I'm not sure, that GCC is using type puning not
guaranteed to work (except "common sense" from "obvious model".)
I think the C family of language standards should think about the
issue and clarify their exact intent... I kn
On Dec 29, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Leif Ekblad wrote:
However, now I still get unresolved externals related to C++
exception-handling (_Unwind_resume
and so on).
mrs $ nm libgcc_s.1.dylib | grep Unwind_Re
8c24 T __Unwind_Resume
mrs $ nm libgcc/unwind-dw2.o | grep Unwind_Res
24c0 T __Unwind
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Dec 29, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I believe, but I'm not sure, that GCC is using type puning not
| > guaranteed to work (except "common sense" from "obvious model".)
|
| I think the C family of language standards should think about
On Dec 29, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I guess we just have to wait till GCC is miscompiled (probably by
| > itself) to see whether the Middle End would cite chapter and
verse :-)
I suspect that humor does not travel well through emails :-) Sorry.
As my 4 year old would
Where are these functions implemented
Mike Stump:
grep will show you the code that should be used to build it. unwind-
dw2.c is the usual place.
OK, I found unwind-dw2.c in the GCC directory. I also found
the object files in the linux host directory, but not in the RDOS cross
compilation di
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Dec 29, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > I guess we just have to wait till GCC is miscompiled (probably by
| > | > itself) to see whether the Middle End would cite chapter and
| > verse :-)
| >
| > I suspect that humor does not travel w
On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Leif Ekblad wrote:
OK, I found unwind-dw2.c in the GCC directory. I also found
the object files in the linux host directory, but not in the RDOS
cross
compilation directory. I cannot run the GCC configuration process
natively on RDOS (yet), so I must somehow build
On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I was actually referring to this case
This is well defined, save for possibly the fact that 4 is written as
4 and not offsetof () and uncontested.
The case I think you're thinking of was upcasting; - offsetof(). It
was decided. The d
> | Another interesting issue would be:
> |
> | struct S {
> | int i;
> | float j;
> | } s;
> |
> | *(float *)((char*)&s + 4);
>
> I was actually referring to this case (or something to that effect) --
> I believe Mark Mitchell was of the opinion that it is undefined
> (though, apologies
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20051229 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20051229/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I was actually referring to this case
|
| This is well defined, save for possibly the fact that 4 is written as
| 4 and not offsetof () and uncontested.
|
| The case I think you're thinking of was u
25 matches
Mail list logo
