Hi all,
I've implemented a stack based or zero operand CPU, including GCC/gdb toolchain,
eCos operating system support, simulator, HDL implementation, etc.
I'm boldly assuming that a fair number of people on this list might
find this a little
bit fascinating.
It's all open source of course:
http
Harpal Grover writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I downloaded and built gcc 4.2.2 on my linux box. I have also used the
> sources to build a cross compiler using Ranjit's Matthews guide. The
> build went just fine. I tried to compile my java application and got
> the following error:
>
> c1: out o
Ismail Dönmez wrote:
Sunday 13 January 2008 18:03:20 tarihinde Andreas Schwab şunları yazmıştı:
Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That was just an example, real life testcase shows that problem stems
from autoconf and its config.h. Projects end up defining things like
HAVE_STDLIB_H twic
On 14 January 2008 11:03, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100
>> From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>> (Yeah, new attributes "impure" and/or "nonconst" would solve
>>> this, but only for IPA and there's already the existing option
>>> and asm I mentioned. A
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100
> From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > (Yeah, new attributes "impure" and/or "nonconst" would solve
> > this, but only for IPA and there's already the existing option
> > and asm I mentioned. And if you say different files/compilation
> > units, I sa
> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:26:33 -
> If you wanted to stick to standard C, you could surely force it with a call
> through function pointer, perhaps? (You might need to make it volatile to
> fool IPA.)
No. No tricks in the calling function. To rei
> On 14 January 2008 11:03, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> >> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>> (Yeah, new attributes "impure" and/or "nonconst" would solve
> >>> this, but only for IPA and there's already the existing option
> >>> and asm
On 14 January 2008 11:43, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:26:33 -
>
>> If you wanted to stick to standard C, you could surely force it with a
>> call through function pointer, perhaps? (You might need to make it
>> volatile to
Consider
struct s { long a : 33; };
long bar(struct s *x) { return (x->a << 16) >> 16; }
extern void abort(void);
int main()
{
struct s a = { 1u << 31 };
if (bar(&a) != 0)
abort ();
return 0;
}
where we currently (rightfully so, IMHO) abort.
There are several prob
Monday 14 January 2008 12:34:03 tarihinde Paolo Bonzini şunları yazmıştı:
> Why not fixing the handful of packages with a /^#define PACKAGE/d,
> instead of adding -fpermissive to the 50 users of those broken packages?
That simple fix won't work, there might be installed headers which depend on
de
> The attached patch makes it clearer to me, does anyone agree?
Please check this in. Thanks Jonathan!
-benjamin
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> - document how integral promotion is performed on the implementation
>defined bitfields we allow as a GNU extension. (4.9, "Integer
>promotion rules are extended for non-standard bit-field types to
>promote to the smallest integer type t
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > - document how integral promotion is performed on the implementation
> >defined bitfields we allow as a GNU extension. (4.9, "Integer
> >promotion rules are extended for non-standard bit-fie
Hi !
I've decided to mail to gcc mail list, since I've could find best programming
language experts in here.
I'm starting to design a new language called 'Simple language'.
I'm searching for people for discussing ideas, designing, brainstorming and/or
making pc side code.
Here is web site: htt
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080114 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080114/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Between r131315 and r131326 I started getting an ICE on mipsel-linux for
gcc.dg/pr34233.c.
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg00144.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg00204.html
David Daney
On Jan 14, 2008 5:09 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Harpal Grover writes:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I downloaded and built gcc 4.2.2 on my linux box. I have also used the
> > sources to build a cross compiler using Ranjit's Matthews guide. The
> > build went just fine. I tried t
On Jan 14, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question arises when computing the value of say long : 33 i;
> i << 16 >> 16. Is the shift performed in long : 33 type? Is an
> out-of-range value truncated?
If truncation makes any difference, then there must have been
overflow
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Can you clarify on the resulting promotions? As I remember the
> standard defines promotions based on the representable values, so
> long : 15 gets promoted to int, but long : 33 doesn't get promoted.
> In the C++ FE at least we promote to the _decla
> I'm starting to design a new language called 'Simple language'.
They rarely are, though. :-)
> I'm searching for people for discussing ideas, designing, brainstorming
> and/or making pc side code.
This is the wrong mailing list for this topic. This list is used to
discuss the development of
20 matches
Mail list logo
