On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:17:47 +0200, "Paolo Bonzini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> > if (get_attr_cirrus (prev_active_insn(insn)) == CIRRUS_COMPARE)
> > return \"beq\\t%l0\;bvs\\t%l0\"; else return \"bge\\t%l0\;nop\";
> > "
> > [(set_attr "conds" "jump_clob")
> >(set_attr "length"
Herman Geza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it's clear now, thanks. However, it brings a new question: the
> standard defines layout-compatible types. For example, if I'm correct, my
> Vector
> and Point are layout compatible. What can I do with layout compatible
> objects?
You can put t
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:15:12 +1000, "Hasjim Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> if_then_else (ge (match_operand:CCFP 1 "cc_register" "") (const_int 0))
> if_then_else (ge:CCFP (match_operand 1 "cc_register" "") (const_int 0))
>
> Is the second line still valid syntax?
The second line doesn'
Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Option '2' looks more favorable to me, though implies greater initial
> effort of simplifying complex machine description without loosing precious
> bits of fine tuning. Following this path define_split will be my best
> friend and helper.
I agree wit
The testsuite can be run with a simulator too (in absence of real
hardware). You can refer to the *-sim.exp files in the dejagnu
baseboards directory for sample specifications.
HTH
regards
saurabh
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 00:18 +0300, Tehila Meyzels wrote:
>
> AFAIK, if you don't have such machine
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 06:45:26PM +1000, Hasjim Williams wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:15:12 +1000, "Hasjim Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> >
> > if_then_else (ge (match_operand:CCFP 1 "cc_register" "") (const_int 0))
> > if_then_else (ge:CCFP (match_operand 1 "cc_register" "") (cons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 27/06/2007 13:27:39:
> The testsuite can be run with a simulator too (in absence of real
> hardware). You can refer to the *-sim.exp files in the dejagnu
> baseboards directory for sample specifications.
>
That's correct, I've forgotten that option.
(We used "systesi
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> In the lto world we will be reading in a function and then hacking on
>> it. Many (most) of those hacks are not in place changes, but adding,
>> deleting and rearranging instructions into the stream.
>>
>> Doing in pla
On 6/26/07 4:08 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> But, first, I'd like to know what folks think about this. Would it be
> generally useful for us to have the IL data structures auto-generated
> this way? I can see the benefits in the reader/writer. But also, we
> are going to have to re-implement the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:09:26AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 6/26/07 4:08 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > But, first, I'd like to know what folks think about this. Would it be
> > generally useful for us to have the IL data structures auto-generated
> > this way? I can see the benefits in
For instance, say you need to impliment a GUI, so you have yourself a
rectangle struct which consists of four floating point values (the origin
and difference between the opposite corner) ...Now you want those four
values, but you also have a 2D vector struct.
Here is a portable alternative to a
Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue is not the io. The current organization, with each function
> arranged in its own section is designed to so that that section can be
> memory mapped in. The question how much work is it going to be to
> transform what is mapped in into the w
I'm seeing this on my 16-bit ix86 port. Something isn't right:
insn_cost 5: 12
insn_cost 6: 8
insn_cost 7: 4
...
rejecting combination of insns 5 and 6
original costs 12 + 8 = 24
replacement cost 28
Now, 12 + 8 = 20, not 24. The cost obviously includes insn 7 also. What's
happening is that
Hello!
The clobber of the scratch register has disappeared!
A possible clue as to what sets up the failure is that the second
replacement insn (to replace insn 7)
(set (reg:HI 24)
(eq:HI (reg:CCZ_C 13 cc)
(const_int 0 [0x0])))
needs to have a clobber added. It really looks like th
> Combine knows how to add clobbers to make insns recognizable. I'm guessing
> it accidentally clobbers the original insn in doing so. Where would I look?
Anywhere in combine. :-) This is by design, see the SUBST macro and the undo
buffer machinery. You need to put a watchpoint on your insn.
-
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm seeing this on my 16-bit ix86 port. Something isn't right:
insn_cost 5: 12
insn_cost 6: 8
insn_cost 7: 4
...
rejecting combination of insns 5 and 6
original costs 12 + 8 = 24
replacement cost 28
Now, 12 + 8 = 20, not 24. The cost obv
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070627 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070627/
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/branches
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:31:42 +0200, "Rask Ingemann Lambertsen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 06:45:26PM +1000, Hasjim Williams wrote:
> >
> > It also fixes up the
> > "internal compiler error: output_operand: '%l' operand isn't a label"
> > error...
> >
> > Incidentally, do
Antoine Chavasse wrote:
>
>> For instance, say you need to impliment a GUI, so you have yourself a
>> rectangle struct which consists of four floating point values (the origin
>> and difference between the opposite corner) ...Now you want those four
>> values, but you also have a 2D vector stru
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:14:18PM -0700, michael.a wrote:
> >> For instance, say you need to impliment a GUI, so you have yourself a
> >> rectangle struct which consists of four floating point values (the origin
> >> and difference between the opposite corner) ...Now you want those four
> >> value
Hello, it appears that g++-4.1 (or g++-4.2, Debian vers. 4.2-20070609-1) does
not support using a static const int as an array bound inside a class. I
wrote som example code below. This type of code is described in the
section "Compile-time constants inside classes" on page 295 in the
book "Thi
mark-28 wrote:
>
> I don't understand what is being requested. Have one structure with
> four fields, and another with two, and allow them to be used
> automatically interchangeably? How is this a good thing? How will
> this prevent the implementor from making a stupid mistake?
>
Its less a q
22 matches
Mail list logo
