Hi,
Is there a structure/array/macro to access all the variables (something
like a variable table) in the back-end after the instantiation of the
virtual registers (vregs pass from function.c) ?
Some info about variable + its virtual register and so on.
Thanks,
Thomas
Hello Ian
On 03.10.08, you wrote:
>> but the func
>>
>> push_parm_decl
>>
>> have no parameter asmspec_tree.
>
> It shouldn't need one.
>
> I'm not sure what the semantics of this should be. Are you trying to
> change the calling convention for a function? Should it change what
> callers
I basically need to test the retarget ability of named address spaces, and
it was determined that the best way to do this was to attempt to have the
SPU implementation spit out a few assembly mnemonics that resemble what our
architecture uses to handle multiple address spaces(hence the loads and
s
I noticed that in start_cleanup_fn the statements:
DECL_INLINE (fndecl) = 1;
DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (fndecl) = 1;
were removed. DECL_INLINE no longer exists but DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P
still exists and if I put that one back into start_cleanup_fn (in
cp/decl.c) my small test case stops outputi
After upgrading to gcc-4.2.1 from a 3.4 version, I see that gcc now
complains about uninitialized variables even when their address is
passed to another function. Now that we get a warning about that
variable being possibly initialized, I'm forced to add an instruction
or two to initialize it (
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Omar Torres" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Shouldn't this macro:
>> #define REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_DOUBLE(IN, OUT) \
>> real_to_target (OUT, &(IN), mode_for_size (64, MODE_FLOAT, 0))
>>
>> be using DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE
Omar Torres wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Omar Torres" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shouldn't this macro:
#define REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_DOUBLE(IN, OUT) \
real_to_target (OUT, &(IN), mode_for_size (64, MODE_FLOAT, 0))
be using DOUBLE_TYP
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The size of the C type "double" is controlled by DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE,
> not the size of the compiler mode "DFmode". This macro is referring
> to the latter -- a double-precision floating point mode.
>
>
> r~
>
Richard,
I
Hi! I am inetested to setup a FTP mirror for the GCC distribution in
Germany. How much disk space/bandwith does it need to provide a mirror? is
it also possible to mirror through rsync?
Thanks and best regards.
Thomas Lepping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> After upgrading to gcc-4.2.1 from a 3.4 version, I see that gcc now
> complains about uninitialized variables even when their address is
> passed to another function.
This should only happen when gcc can see the called function and see
that the value was used there bef
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20081003 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20081003/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Does anyone know why gdb appears to be unable to find the debug
> > information
> > for libstdc++ in gcc 4.3 and gcc trunk on darwin9? This has been reported
> > before
> > as...
> >
> > https://trac.ma
Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> Does anyone know why gdb appears to be unable to find the debug
>>> information
>>> for libstdc++ in gcc 4.3 and gcc trunk on darwin9? This has been reported
>>> before
>>> as...
>
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:29:40PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> >> Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>> Does anyone know why gdb appears to be unable to find the debug
> >>> information
> >>> for libstdc++ in gcc
Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:29:40PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Jack Howarth wrote:
> Does anyone know why gdb appears to be unable to find the debug
> information
15 matches
Mail list logo