TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK

Hello! I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from: int test (int a, int c) { return a << (c & 0x1f); } The macro was defined as: +/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK. */ +static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT

Re: Triplet for ARM Linux HardFP ABI

On 12/07/10 14:25, Andrew Stubbs wrote: This means that we need to choose a name for it. Obviously, it's better if it's an "official" name, so I want to discuss it here. I'm aware that there is some bikeshedding to do here, but it's better it gets done before anybody gets stuck with something els

Re: onlinedocs/libstdc++ appears stale

On 15 July 2010 10:54, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > How shall we address this for real?  Is it really worthwhile to manually > generate those .html.gz files for onlinedocs/libstdc++ or could we simply > omit that step?  Not sure it's really worth the hassles? I have no idea why we gzip them, it certa

Re: TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK

On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: Hello! I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from: int test (int a, int c) { return a<< (c& 0x1f); } The macro was defined as: +/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCAT

Re: TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> Hello! >> >> I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the >> hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from: >> >> int test (int a, int c) >> { >>        return a<

Why is debug_insn built into DDG?

Hello, I started to look at VTA recently and check whether our port passes the -fcompare-debug test. Our port contains some extra passes for our VLIW target. What I have trouble is with our modulo scheduling pass (based on IMS algorithm). I noticed that debug_insns are built into DDG, and has

gcc-4.5-20100715 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100715 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100715/ 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/branches

GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

This is the code. -- #define PointerA struct a * void f( PointerA ); typedef struct a * PA; struct a { int x; }; void f( PA a ) { } - This is the output warning: 'struct a' declared inside parameter list warning: its scope is onl

ICE with GCC-4.5.1-20100708

Testing the mingw64-i686* packages found at ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/temp/MinGW (Cygwin cross compiler, see[*]), I have obtained an ICE: $ cat ICE_test.cpp void foo(char const* upattern, int color) { static short bitmap_data[8]; for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) { bitmap_da

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

On 16/07/2010 00:59, J Decker wrote: > -- > > #define PointerA struct a * > > void f( PointerA ); > > typedef struct a * PA; > struct a { int x; }; > > void f( PA a ) > { > } > > - > > This is the output > > warning: 'struct a' de

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 16/07/2010 00:59, J Decker wrote: > >> -- >> >> #define PointerA struct a * >> >> void f( PointerA ); >> >> typedef struct a * PA; >> struct a { int x; }; >> >> void f( PA a ) >> { >> } >> >> ---

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

On 16/07/2010 01:21, J Decker wrote: > Now it's happy, why can't it just define 'struct a' as an appropriate > name as it used to, the strucutre still isn't defined. That's just the way that C works, I'm afraid. > (okay every other compiler I mention is MSVC, OpenWatcom, lcc, and gcc > before

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning... typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition; and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how? If I never actually use 'NeverUsedDefinition'? Actually this 'feature' now causes useless and unused declartions to be created. On Thu, Jul 15, 2010

Re: ICE with GCC-4.5.1-20100708

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:06 +0200, Angelo Graziosi wrote: > Testing the mingw64-i686* packages found at > ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/temp/MinGW (Cygwin cross > compiler, see[*]), I have obtained an ICE: > > $ cat ICE_test.cpp > void foo(char const* upattern, int color) > { >st

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

On 16/07/2010 01:31, J Decker wrote: > Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning... > > typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition; > > and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how? No, that would be bad coding. Just forward-declare the tag: struct a; before you try and use it

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM, J Decker wrote: > Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning... > > typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition; > > and now it's happy?  And that makes good coding how? If I never > actually use 'NeverUsedDefinition'?  Actually this 'feature' now > causes usele

Re: GCC 4.5.0 Reports invalid warning

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 16/07/2010 01:31, J Decker wrote: >> Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning... >> >> typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition; >> >> and now it's happy?  And that makes good coding how? > >  No, that would be bad coding.  Just forwar

Re: [gengtype] are mark_hook GTY still working? Perhaps not!

2010/7/14 Basile Starynkevitch : > I am quite sure that at some point in the past, the mark_hook did work. > > But I have the impression that with the current gengtype, they don't. [...] > Does any one have a working example of mark_hook GTY? Have you ruled out user errors here? Are there any mark