On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Helge Hafting wrote:
Mikulas Patocka wrote:
Hi
Here I'm sending 10 patches to inline various functions.
To give you some understanding of sparc64, every function there uses big
stack frame (at least 192 bytes). 128 bytes are required by architecture
(16 64-bit registers
Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL containers
to the garbage collector?
One big problem with garbage collecting in C++ is the need to run
destructors. If the (I believe very reasonable) decision is made to
require that running destructors is not necessary for garbage
colle
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:02:40AM +0800, Ye, Joey wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> We generate following DWARF2 instructions for stack alignment prologue.
> Basically we use expression to calculate CFA. But it run into some
> segfault in libmudflap and libjava. Do you have any hints what's wrong?
The only t
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 08:40:18PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I think the problem is in uw_update_context_1. REG_SAVED_EXP
> and REG_SAVED_VAL_EXP may use other registers as shown above:
>
>DW_CFA_expression: r6 (esi) (DW_OP_breg5: -8)
>
> They should be handle last. I am testing this patch. D
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:36:15 +0100
>> From: Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I thought cast-through-pointer-to-union didn't work and was already
>> disallowed; we've been around all this already.
>
> We also bless assignments through unions, and this could be
Chris Jefferson wrote:
Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL containers
to the garbage collector?
One big problem with garbage collecting in C++ is the need to run
destructors. If the (I believe very reasonable) decision is made to
require that running destructors is not ne
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Jefferson wrote:
>>
>> Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL containers
>> to the garbage collector?
>>
>> One big problem with garbage collecting in C++ is the need to run
>> destructors.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:36:15 +0100
>>> From: Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> I thought cast-through-pointer-to-union didn't work and was already
>>> disallowed; we've been around all
> "Chris" == Chris Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL
Chris> containers to the garbage collector?
I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
> familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
Also - I may regret saying this but - doesn't gengtype have a
simplistic C parser in it? How upset is it like
> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
>> familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
Daniel> Also - I may regret saying this
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:36:15 +0100
From: Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought cast-through-pointer-to-union didn't work and was already
disall
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:36:15 +0100
> From: Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to
implement in C.
In C++, we can.
This is of course, a larg
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
> hand-write the walkers once.
>
> One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
> abstract interface with member functions that
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> The C++ standard calls this a type pun, so -- with all due respect -- I'm
>
> The C++ standard does not actually call it a type pun, but I think I
> understand what you
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>>> The C++ standard calls this a type pun, so -- with all due respect -- I'm
>>
>> The C++ s
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm, does C++0x add some type-reflection? ;)
Yes but I don't see how we can use it in C++03/C++98 code. Compiling
GCC 4.5 (or 5.0) with only 4.3 will be a pain.
In fact C++0x has changed the definition of auto so you
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmmm, does C++0x add some type-reflection? ;)
>
> Yes but I don't see how we can use it in C++03/C++98 code. Compiling
> GCC 4.5 (or 5.0) w
It might due to
DW_CFA_expression: r6 (esi) (DW_OP_breg5: -8)
DW_CFA_expression: r3 (ebx) (DW_OP_breg5: -12)
After defining reg via CFA instead of r5, we got less failure.
Thanks - Joey
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 200
> "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
Dan> hand-write the walkers once.
Yeah, we could do that for the containers.
GTY markers serve three purposes though: they explain the meanings of
fields (this part
FYI
jazzy 315 % ./config.guess
i686-pc-linux-gnu
jazzy 316 % /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/gcc-4.3.1/configure
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,java --enable-shared --enable-bootstrap
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>> I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
>>> familiar with wha
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to
implement in C.
In C++, we can.
Th
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to
implement in C.
In C++, we can.
Th
Taras wrote:
I might be the only person out there who likes GTY annotations. The fact
that gengtype has a separate parser is highly inconvenient. Why not use
the GCC C/C++ parser on gengtype? It seems that with some refactoring,
it should be possible to bootstrap just the C++ parser( without
Hello,
I came across a problem with the x86 backend of gcc (3.3 - 4.1). When
I compile code which access a lookup table of size 65536, gcc
generates code which uses 16bit opcodes.
The intel architecture optimization guide warns that 16bit opcodes
should be avoided whenever possible due to Length
From: Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
> Even worse, gcc doesn't use these additional bytes. If you try this:
>
> extern void f(int *i);
> void g()
> {
> int a;
> f(&a);
> }
>
> , it allocates additional 16 bytes for the variable "
2008/6/25 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:36, Fabien Chêne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How can I process ? Do I need GNU copyright assignment ? Do I
>> need SVN right access after approval ? Otherwise, can I send the
>> patch on gcc-patches so that someone else w
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080625 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080625/
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
I will send it privately.
David
Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
>> the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
>> it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC
>> objects, it will need to be modified.
>
>
Andrew Haley wrote:
But, I am actually ok with having it be disabled by default, provided
that regressions affect gcj are treated seriously: fixed in a timely
way by the person causing the regression, or, if not, letting gcj
maintainers start the patch-reversion clock.
If we make this change I'
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Nadav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came across a problem with the x86 backend of gcc (3.3 - 4.1). When I
> compile code which access a lookup table of size 65536, gcc generates code
> which uses 16bit opcodes.
>
> The intel architecture optimization guide warns
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> Even worse, gcc doesn't use these additional bytes. If you try this:
>>
>> extern void f(int *i);
>> void g()
>> {
>> int
35 matches
Mail list logo
