Hi, I changed:
(match_operand:HI 2 "general_operand" "")))]
to
(match_operand:HI 2 "splitable_operand" "")))]
as suggested, and the problem seems to be solved!
I posted a bug report the the m68hc1x site, I will post a follow up.
Thanks,
Sean D'Epagnier
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 01:49 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
It would be nice to have such a construct in GNU C, something that
could be used in a macro expansion, and would turn off _all_ warnings
for the code within the construct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnost
> It would be nice to have such a construct in GNU C, something that
> could be used in a macro expansion, and would turn off _all_ warnings
> for the code within the construct.
Similar to __extension__?
I agree that's a good idea.
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 22:59 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 01:49 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > It would be nice to have such a construct in GNU C, something that
> > could be used in a macro expansion, and would turn off _all_ warnings
> > for the code within the construct
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Since GNU Ada already has a pragma Warnings On/Off, if more than
one front-end define it may be it's worth having a flag
going through the backend to suppress backend warnings too.
Laurent
Note that the Warnings On/Off in GNAT works on syntactic positions
of flags, not
> Since GNU Ada already has a pragma Warnings On/Off, if more than
> one front-end define it may be it's worth having a flag
> going through the backend to suppress backend warnings too.
There is already TREE_NO_WARNING and the Ada compiler sets it on entities
subject to pragma Warnings (entity,
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Since GNU Ada already has a pragma Warnings On/Off, if more than
one front-end define it may be it's worth having a flag
going through the backend to suppress backend warnings too.
There is already TREE_NO_WARNING and the Ada compiler sets it on entities
subject to pragma
On 21/01/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 01:49 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It would be nice to have such a construct in GNU C, something that
> could be used in a macro expansion, and would turn off _all_ warnings
> for the code within the construct.
http:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 01:15:19PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>Somewhere in the libgcc build machinery, there is mechanism to override
> the default LIBGCC2_UNITS_PER_WORD setting when compilng a function, so you
> could in principle provide e.g. _divsi3 as well as _divdi3. It there
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 01:15:19PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> >Somewhere in the libgcc build machinery, there is mechanism to override
> > the default LIBGCC2_UNITS_PER_WORD setting when compilng a function, so y
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20070121 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20070121/
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
Looking at libjava/configure.ac, I understand that we only use and
install libjava/scripts/jar.in if no version of jar nor fastjar is
already present in $PATH:
AC_CHECK_PROGS([JAR], [jar fastjar], no)
AC_PATH_PROG([ZIP], [zip], no)
AC_PATH_PROG([UNZIP], [unzip], unzip)
AM_CONDITIONAL(
> "Gerald" == Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gerald> Looking at libjava/configure.ac, I understand that we only use and
Gerald> install libjava/scripts/jar.in if no version of jar nor fastjar is
Gerald> already present in $PATH:
I think we should never install the jar script -- w
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My question now is: Is there any way to enforce the use and installation
> of our own copy of ${PREFIX}/bin/jar${PROGRAMSUFFIX}?
Set JAR to no before configuring.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Max
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 11:09:56PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>I would like to be able to add something like
>
> LIBGCC2_EXTRA_FUNCS = _ashldi3:2 _ashrdi3:2 _lshrdi3:2 _divdi3:2 _moddi3:2
>
> to t-machine instead of
>
> LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA = ashlsi3.c ashrsi3.c lshrsi3.c ...
>
> ash
I submitted a patch to gengtype-lex.l last week to gcc-patches. The
patch uses some flex %option directives. Ian Taylor asked me to check
if the patch passed through flex 2.5.4, which is the current minimum
required version. It didn't work.
Through some experimentation, I learned that the minim
On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I noticed today that gcc 4.2 branch seems to create a bogus symlink
on Darwin PPC. A symlink for libgcc_s_x86_64.1.dylib is created that
points at libgcc_s.1.dylib. However libgcc_s.1.dylib is not a quad
binary...
file libgcc_s.1.dylib
libgcc_s
Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's worth raising the minimum required version from 2.5.4 to
> 2.5.31.
I want to point out that Fedora Core 5 appears to still ship flex
2.5.4. At least, that is what flex --version reports. (I didn't
bother to check this before.) I think we
On 21 Jan 2007 22:13:06 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's worth raising the minimum required version from 2.5.4 to
> 2.5.31.
I want to point out that Fedora Core 5 appears to still ship flex
2.5.4. At least, that is what
> > > I think it's worth raising the minimum required version from 2.5.4 to
> > > 2.5.31.
> >
> > I want to point out that Fedora Core 5 appears to still ship flex
> > 2.5.4. At least, that is what flex --version reports. (I didn't
> > bother to check this before.) I think we need a very strong
"Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21 Jan 2007 22:13:06 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I think it's worth raising the minimum required version from 2.5.4 to
> > > 2.5.31.
> >
> > I want to point out that Fed
21 matches
Mail list logo
