Hi All,
On our private port of GCC 4.4.1 we fail to combine successive SHIFT
operations like in the following case
#include
#include
void f1 ()
{
unsigned short t1;
unsigned short t2;
t1 = rand();
t2 = rand();
t1 <<= 1; t2 <<= 1;
t1 <<= 1; t2 <<= 1;
t1 <<= 1; t2 <<= 1;
t1 <<=
The microblaze branch has been synced with gcc-head and
updated to gcc-4.5.0.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Hi
I have developed a JIT for linux 64 bits. It generates exception
handling information
according to DWARF under linux and it works with gcc 4.2.1.
I have recompiled the same code under the Macintosh and something has
changed,
apparently, because now any throw that passes through my code cr
Adam Nemet writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Mat Hostetter writes:
> >
> >> Since the high bits are already zero, that would be less efficient on
> >> most platforms, so guarding it with something like this would probably
> >> be smarter:
> >>
> >> if (targetm.mode_rep_extended (mode, GE
Hello List,
I'm new to gcc internals. As part of an experiment, I copied the i386 back-end
in gcc 4.2.2 to create my own i386-like target arch. At some point, my hacking
caused my i386 to produce assembly with two memory touching operands in one
instruction, like this:
movl12(%eb
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100204 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100204/
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
I was looking at a regression caused by having ira-reload utilize the
existing copy detection code in IRA rather than my own and stumbled upon
this...
Consider this insn prior to IRA:
(insn 72 56 126 8 j.c:744 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 110)
(minus:SI (reg:SI 69 [ e
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 08:12:10PM +0100, jacob navia wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have developed a JIT for linux 64 bits. It generates exception
> handling information
> according to DWARF under linux and it works with gcc 4.2.1.
>
> I have recompiled the same code under the Macintosh and something has
>
Mat Hostetter writes:
> Adam Nemet writes:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > > Mat Hostetter writes:
> > >
> > >> Since the high bits are already zero, that would be less efficient on
> > >> most platforms, so guarding it with something like this would probably
> > >> be smarter:
> > >>
> > >>
