On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Zhenqiang Chen
wrote:
> On 23 October 2012 18:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Zhenqiang Chen
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> PRE bases on the result of value numbering (run_scc_vn). At the end,
>>> it free_scc_vn. But before free_scc_vn, i
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Joseph S. Myers
> Sent: 23 October 2012 15:28
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
>
> So far only TRAMPOLINE_SIZE is handled
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Joseph S. Myers
> Sent: 23 October 2012 15:28
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
>
> conversions of other macros are welcome.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Paulo Matos wrote:
> I gave it a go with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP.
Given what you've found, maybe other macros are easier to convert
> I started by changing crtstuff.c to use __LIBGCC_TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP__
> instead of TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP. I noticed crtstuff.c is not compile
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 24 October 2012 13:32
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> > I gave it a go with TEXT_SECTION
> .. right now I can't really check, but looks like 54912 & co
Hmm... is anybody actively working on this? It's breaking a lot of my
code. I'd take a stab at fixing this, but not for the next couple of
weeks.
Andrew
On 10/24/2012 03:42 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
.. right now I can't really check, but looks like 54912 & co
Hmm... is anybody actively working on this? It's breaking a lot of my
code. I'd take a stab at fixing this, but not for the next couple of
weeks.
It's a serious regression, thus will be defi
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 24 October 2012 13:32
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
>
> I don't like this #else. Presumably the libgcc code already works if
> TEXT_SE
I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
Part of my current difficulty is I do "make bootstrap" (on a 100% clean
directory after configure) and it does as I reported before.
If I then just do "make bootstrap" a second
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 24 October 2012 13:32
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Documentation problem with TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP
>
>
> I don't like this #else. Presumably the libgcc code already works if
> TEX
On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
>> merge belong to the same partition, so it should be OK.
>
> In your first email, you said if-convert was merging t
On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
> calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
Just "make" is correct, and has been for many years now.
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
>> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
>> calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
>
> Just "make" is correct, and has been for many years now.
Thanks.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Are these changes to handling of TEXT_SECTION_ASM_OP interesting for
> GCC? If they are I will look further into improving the code and turning
> it into a patch.
Conversions of target macros to hooks are generally of interest.
I don't think we want a
Hi,
I am writing a plugin to analyse C code by walking the AST in
GENERIC format, and have trouble getting the body of function
declarations.
The plugin registers a callback to PLUGIN_FINISH_UNIT, and therein
retrieves function_decl nodes of the current translation unit by
iterating over cgraph_n
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
>>> merge belong to the same partition, so it should be OK.
>
Hello,
../../trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function 'void
rs6000_density_test(rs6000_cost_data*)':
../../trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:3550:32: error: 'dump_kind_p'
was not declared in this scope
This is due to:
2012-10-24 Sharad Singhai
* dumpfile.c (dump_enabled_p): Make
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> ../../trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function 'void
> rs6000_density_test(rs6000_cost_data*)':
> ../../trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:3550:32: error: 'dump_kind_p'
> was not declared in this scope
>
> This is due to:
>
>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:55:23PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> The plugin registers a callback to PLUGIN_FINISH_UNIT, and therein
> retrieves function_decl nodes of the current translation unit by
> iterating over cgraph_nodes. However, getting the function body
> using DECL_SAVED_TREE(node) alwa
On 24/10/12 17:30, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Paulo Matos wrote:
Conversions of target macros to hooks are generally of interest.
I don't think we want a stream-of-consciousness sequence of messages about
successive aspects of the issue.
I apologize if my messages became a nu
Is someone going to apply this patch?
Thanks, David
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> ../../trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function 'void
>> rs6000_density_test(rs6000_cost_data*)':
>> ../../
I thought Steven was going to do that. If not, I can apply it.
Thanks,
Sharad
Sharad
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Is someone going to apply this patch?
>
> Thanks, David
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, S
Committed in r192788.
Thanks,
Sharad
Sharad
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> I thought Steven was going to do that. If not, I can apply it.
>
> Thanks,
> Sharad
> Sharad
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Is someone going to apply this patch
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Gregory Nietsky wrote:
>
> In using 4.7.2 and am working on extending our distro to have
> x86/x86_64/x32/arm
>
> Ive yanked the H.Lu patch to add --with-abi support from trunk and am
> extending it to
> have a default 32bit ABI we have nicknamed this the LOTR com
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I
>>> was calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
>>
>> Just
25 matches
Mail list logo
