Hi,
I've noticed odd behaviour when building an ARM compiler with GCC 4.7,
--with-mode=thumb and multilibs enabled.
If I do a standard c/c++ newlib build with the following multilib options:
MULTILIB_OPTIONS += marm mthumb
MULTILIB_DIRNAMES+= arm thumb
we get the following static libs:
./
> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Pettersson [mailto:mi...@it.uu.se]
> Sent: 04 May 2013 11:51
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
>
> I can't comment on the code in question, but the backend for m68k may be
> affected
> since it defines ST
"Paulo Matos" writes:
> I haven't tried to run it in m68k-linux since I don't have binutils-m68k
> installed but I assume it will print something like:
> -1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)
>
> and return exit code 1.
I'm getting "1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)" with 4.7.3.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE La
On 04/29/13 19:35, Scott Baldwin wrote:
> I was able to verify it with the .sig from gnu.org ftp, along with the info
> at http://ftp.gnu.org/ about where to obtain the gnu-keyring.gpg file.
>
> A suggestion... In addition to making sure the .sig is copied to your
> mirrors, I recommend including
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:00 +0400, Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> > Which accelerators do you intent to handle? "Accelerator" is a rather
> > broad term, covering DSPs, GPUs, Intel's MIC, ...
> The idea is to emit OpenCL from high-GIMPLE, for know. So, any device
> that has OpenCL support
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 17:34 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:02:08AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> > >We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make
> > >it more or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
> >
> > For the frien
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:27 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/06/2013 07:41 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >>
> >> Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What do you think about support of OpenACC 1.0
> >>> (http://www.openacc-standard.org/) in gcc?
> >
On 08/05/13 14:54, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I'm getting "1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)" with 4.7.3.
Andreas.
As I expected. That doesn't sound good but I am unsure on what to do
about it. I will investigate the case further tomorrow.
I expect m68k to also fail the vector-compare-1.c gcc test, is t
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 12:46 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >> Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more
> >>> or le
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> As I expected. That doesn't sound good
In which way is it not good?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
On 08/05/13 21:29, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
As I expected. That doesn't sound good
In which way is it not good?
Andreas.
Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE) and therefore the
condition of the if be false if everything is fine?
Otherwise if, indep
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE)
??? Boolean expressions in C evaluate to 0/1.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different.
On 08/05/13 23:10, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE)
??? Boolean expressions in C evaluate to 0/1.
Andreas.
Agreed, I worked till too late yesterday, I am sorry.
Further to this matter, can you explain the reasoning behind
13 matches
Mail list logo
