(gcc-4.4.1)
Hi,
I found out some strange behavior of simplify_relational_operation.
Apparently it assumes QImode is signed even though this could not be
deduced from the EQ operator.
Here is an example:
rtx reg = gen_reg_rtx(QImode);
...
rtx test = simplify_relational_operation(EQ, VOIDmode, QImo
I'm pretty sure I found a bug in psp-gcc (or actually in ld). It may be with
the specific psp-gcc/ld bfd or it may be in ld itself. I'm not sure this is
the right forum to post this, but hopefully the experts can assist me.
I'm working on the PSP (MIPS architecture), doing some unusual linking in
You wrote:
> I refrained from adding a 4000 file testcase ;)
Never mind - I have one. I didn't understand why lto1 said this:
/usr/snp/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/../../../../x86_64-unknown-linux
-gnu/bin/ld: fatal error: could not open/create temporary file
while dealing with the
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Toon Moene wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> > I refrained from adding a 4000 file testcase ;)
>
> Never mind - I have one. I didn't understand why lto1 said this:
>
> /usr/snp/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/../../../../x86_64-unknown-linux
> -gnu/bin/ld: fatal error: could
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Toon Moene wrote:
You wrote:
I refrained from adding a 4000 file testcase ;)
Never mind - I have one. I didn't understand why lto1 said this:
/usr/snp/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/../../../../x86_64-unknown-linux
-gnu/bin/ld: fatal er
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Toon Moene wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Toon Moene wrote:
> >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > > I refrained from adding a 4000 file testcase ;)
> > > Never mind - I have one. I didn't understand why lto1 said this:
> > >
> > > /usr/snp/lib/gcc/
On 10/29/2009 03:35 AM, Amir Gonnen wrote:
rtx test = simplify_relational_operation(EQ, VOIDmode, QImode, reg,
GEN_INT(129));
CONST_INT is always signed.
If you really wrote this as you quote here, that would be the breakage.
Try gen_int_mode (129, QImode) instead.
r~
Amir Gonnen wrote:
> Perhaps EQ and NE could be treated as unsigned, like the
> GEU,LEU,GTU,LTU operators?
:) What exactly is "signed equality" and how does/would it differ from
"unsigned equality"? I'm not sure the concept makes any sense! (And that's
always a warning sign that your diagnosi
A prerelease tarball of the upcoming mpc-0.8 is available here:
http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.8-dev.tar.gz
This release is feature complete with respect to C99 and GCC's needs.
So I expect to make this version be the one made mandatory for the
gcc-4.5 release. If there are any
Hi,
Cross-MIPS gcc version (for Linux target) used is 4.3.2
Today I saw that .so files of MIPS contain some undef symbols with
non-zero value
The few I saw are defined in libC
Wont this confuse dynamic linker of 4.3.2 ? ( i know that in 4.3.3.
, there is the STO_MIPS_PLT check which skip
Hi,
I have few questions about inbuilt mechanism of gcc/g++ for
warning about uninitialized variable.
I am interested in cases where compiler is unable to warn. I am
aware that all the known bugs about warning-failure are
mentioned at bugzilla http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20091029 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20091029/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
From: "David Fang"
On powerpc-apple-darwin8:
gmp: 4.3.1
mpfr: 2.4.1
% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8
Configured with:
/var/tmp/gcc/gcc-5370~2/src/configure --disable-checking -enable-werror --prefix=/usr
--mandir=/share/man --enable-languages=c,objc,c++,obj-c++
From: "Allan McRae"
Nothing exotic:
i686-pc-linux-gnu & x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Both:
===
All 57 tests passed
===
gcc-4.4.2
mpfr-2.4.1
gmp-4.3.1
Also fine on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc-4.5-20091008
Allan
Thanks!
Bluddy writes:
> Notice that ld is chaining LO16 relocations after HI16's. However, it's
> doing something completely illegal since the LO16 for 08aecb54 is not
> preceded by a valid HI16 entry! ld got confused by the two address ranges.
While the calculation of a HI16 reloc requires the LO16 r
Uma shankar writes:
> Cross-MIPS gcc version (for Linux target) used is 4.3.2
>
> Today I saw that .so files of MIPS contain some undef symbols with
> non-zero value
>
> The few I saw are defined in libC
>
> Wont this confuse dynamic linker of 4.3.2 ? ( i know that in 4.3.3.
> , there is the
Uma shankar writes:
> a) The compiler activates the warning mechanism only if optimisation
> is enabled at compilation time with -O option. For all the bugs that
> I went through at bugzilla, the failure is not -O level dependent.
> The warning-failure occurs for all levels of optimisation
17 matches
Mail list logo