On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:45 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >>>The problem is with using stdint.h integer types without checking if
> >>>they are actually
> >>>available. I have posted a fix for this already that needs to be
> >>>reviewed. Along with
> >>>some other fixes for similar target OS depe
On 2/4/06, Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:45 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > >>>The problem is with using stdint.h integer types without checking if
> > >>>they are actually
> > >>>available. I have posted a fix for this already that needs to be
> > >>>reviewe
On Feb 3, 2006, at 8:23 PM, tbp wrote:
As i coulnd't understand why g++ insisted on spitting movq $0,
only to rewrite the same place a few cycles behind (with a different
width), i've made a testcase and now 20mn later i'm even more puzzled.
signs_all[4] = { !(sx > 0), !(sy
On 2/4/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dale Johannesen and I came up with a patch to the C++ front-end
> for this except it did not work with some C++ cases.
Ah, so i'm not totally inane.
Is there a PR i can track for this one?
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20060204 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20060204/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
signs_all[4] = { !(sx > 0), !(sy > 0), !(sz > 0), 0 },
C++ front-end produces:
<>;
<>>;
<<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt signs_all[1] = (int) sy <= 0 >>>;
<<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt signs_all[2] = (int) sz <= 0 >>>;
While the C
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> This is OK for mainline and 4.1.
> Please cite PR target/25864 in the ChangeLog entry.
Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
4.1 at this point in the
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
> with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
> 4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
I don't like it either, but what's the altern
