Ian thanks for you answer,
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> SUBTARGET_SWITCHES shouldn't have anything to do with ASM_SPEC.
>
Unfortunately it does. Mark was right for the asmspec in
rest_of_decl_compilation but the subtarget switches needed. In a sense
what you saying above is tr
2009/2/27 daniel tian :
> 2009/2/27 Dave Korn :
>> daniel tian wrote:
>>
>>> That seems to solving a address mode problem. My problem is that while
>>> loading a large immediate data or SYMBOL_REF, the destination is a
>>> specified general register (register 0:R0). So I don't how to let the
>>> d
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Takis Psarogiannakopoulos wrote:
> > The only use of
> > SUBTARGET_SWITCHES was to be expanded by the TARGET_SWITCHES macro.
> >
> Exactly. The feature was there for the last 15 years of developemnt of
> GCC. Whats replacing it? Nothing?
Options are defined using .opt files.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Takis Psarogiannakopoulos wrote:
>
> > > The only use of
> > > SUBTARGET_SWITCHES was to be expanded by the TARGET_SWITCHES macro.
> > >
> > Exactly. The feature was there for the last 15 years of developemnt of
> > GCC. Whats rep
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Takis Psarogiannakopoulos wrote:
>
> > > The only use of
> > > SUBTARGET_SWITCHES was to be expanded by the TARGET_SWITCHES macro.
> > >
> > Exactly. The feature was there for the last 15 years of developemnt of
> > GCC. Whats repl
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Takis Psarogiannakopoulos
wrote:
> Also you saying basically that there is no other way to customize
> GCC (anymore) other than to hack the original .opt source files. I would
> prefer really to hack a .c file than the .opt files.
Why? .opt files are used to gener
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Takis Psarogiannakopoulos
> wrote:
> > Also you saying basically that there is no other way to customize
> > GCC (anymore) other than to hack the original .opt source files. I would
> > prefer really to hack a .c file t
Hi,
I'm trying to create install images for AIX. I plan to put them
someplace for other AIX lusers.
The current "rpm" images from IBM assume that you have 5.3 TL05 (a
particular level of 5.3). They simply plop in place the fixed
headers. On systems prior to TL05, those headers break.
I clicked the 'Clone This Bug' link for PR39347, which depends on PR39302
and blocks PR39346, but the cloned PR started out with
'Depends on 39347' and an empty 'Blocks:' list.
2009/3/2 Joern Rennecke :
> I clicked the 'Clone This Bug' link for PR39347, which depends on PR39302
> and blocks PR39346, but the cloned PR started out with
> 'Depends on 39347' and an empty 'Blocks:' list.
Not surprising, the GCC bugzilla version is very old and may well have
security issues.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Daniel showed how this can fail for objects with internal pointers.
> This includes __gnu_cxx::__vstring, which is likely to be the default
> std::string class in libstdc++ 7, so this is not an unlikely occurrence.
The C++ standard limits the compiler's ability to introd
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:16:42PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > Daniel showed how this can fail for objects with internal pointers.
> > This includes __gnu_cxx::__vstring, which is likely to be the default
> > std::string class in libstdc++ 7, so this is not an unlik
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:16:42PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The C++ standard limits the compiler's ability to introduce copies. It
says "Here are where copies occur; some of these can be optimized away."
It doesn't say anything about inserting more copies. So, depending
Hi All,
FYI, LLVM 2.5 was released today:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-March/31.html
http://llvm.org/releases/2.5/docs/ReleaseNotes.html
If you are interested in LLVM, please follow up on the LLVM mailing
lists, thanks!
-Chris
Hi all:
Currently I'm building cross gcc for mips32 on winXp+cygwin.
I tried both gcc 4.2.4 and 4.2.3 and there is a building problem with 4.2.4
gcc makefile normally issue shell command "echo 'exec
$(ORIGINAL_AS_FOR_TARGET) "$$@"' >> as ; \"
at around line 1370, but ORIGINAL_AS_FOR_TARGET defi
Michael Veksler writes:
> In this case, how is it possible to copy the objects? Will things just
> crash at run-time?
Although people have been discussing copying the objects, I should point
out that my original proposal suggests not copying. Instead the code
can always access the objects via p
"Amker.Cheng" writes:
> if test "${gcc_cv_as+set}" = set; then
> :
> else
> #other commands...
> fi
Note that the other commands set gcc_cv_as.
> I don't know much about configure process, So where does gcc_cv_as come from?
The first time you run configure, it is not set, and the "other
c
17 matches
Mail list logo
