On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>assuming the need to generate code in which
> almost everything is used 3x (e.g. 3x registers,
> 3 times data, etc.) for a specific purpose (*) for any
> given target,
> what would be the best way to implement it?
>
> (let's name t
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Why is jump_table_data an active_insn?
> int
> active_insn_p (const_rtx insn)
> {
> return (CALL_P (insn) || JUMP_P (insn)
> || JUMP_TABLE_DATA_P (insn) /* FIXME */
> || (NONJUMP_INSN_P (insn)
> && (! reload_
On 05/05/2014 08:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> It really depends on how "3x" should materialize in the end.
> How do you triplicate ops with side-effects? If you only
> triplicate ops without side-effects what is the sink that keeps
> the duplicated ops live?
The vote, surely. CSE would be abso
In some cases, GCC's pta pass does not dump the points-to information for
function pointers which are formal parameters.
Why is it so?
Also it does not store the information for the corresponding SSA name.
However, it dumps pointer information for the parameter variable as
.constprop.0.arg0 = {
Status
==
After releasing GCC 4.9.0 it is now time to think about a GCC 4.8.3
release. The branch remains in release-branch mode for now until
we do a first release candidate somewhen next week. This means you
have about a week to do backports of important regression fixes - now
that GCC 4.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
>
> In some cases, GCC's pta pass does not dump the points-to information for
> function pointers which are formal parameters.
>
> Why is it so?
Depends on the case.
> Also it does not store the information for the corresponding SSA name.
>
> H
On Monday 05 May 2014 04:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
In some cases, GCC's pta pass does not dump the points-to information for
function pointers which are formal parameters.
Why is it so?
Depends on the case.
Also it does not store the in
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 08:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> It really depends on how "3x" should materialize in the end.
>> How do you triplicate ops with side-effects? If you only
>> triplicate ops without side-effects what is the sink that keeps
>> th
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2014 04:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Swati Rathi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In some cases, GCC's pta pass does not dump the points-to information for
>>> function pointers which are formal paramete
On 4/05/2014 12:34 pm, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
On 3/05/2014 10:57 pm, Franzi Edo. wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to build a gcc-4.9.0 ARM cross compiler on OSX Mavericks
unsuccessfully.
My toolchain works fine with the previous version 4.8.2 but on the
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:45:46PM +1000, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 4/05/2014 12:34 pm, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> >>On 3/05/2014 10:57 pm, Franzi Edo. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>I am trying to build a gcc-4.9.0 ARM cross compiler on OSX Mavericks
>
Hi
We have a few build failures on the RTEMS target where it appears
that the -ml argument to make a relocatable is not turned into a
-EL argument to ld by gcc 4.8.2.
This is the output of invoking gcc with "-v". Below that I invoked
the same LD command with -EL on the command line and it
worked.
Following up to myself... I don't know exactly how to fix
this but I think I have pulled the right thread.
gcc/config/sh/superh.h defined SUBTARGET_LINK_SPEC which
appears to have the right arguments.
sh-rtems4.11-gcc -dumpspecs shows that *link ends with
"%(subtarget_link_spec} which seems corre
I was trying to regress a bug at work to make sure it was fixed. The
comments in the bug were saying that valgrind was showing some memory
leaks. Went through the reproduction steps and saw that the
particular leak mentioned in the bug was gone but that valgrind was
reporting more leaks. After
We are now ready to merge the wide-int branch.The branch was broken
into small pieces and each of the area maintainers has approved their
pieces.
The branch has been tested and runs regression free on three 64 bit
platforms: x86, ppc, and s390 and on three 32 bit platforms: x86, arm
and s
Hi Tobias,
thank you for your reply! I have questions about types. Could you
please answer them?
Questions related to “type_for_interval”:
1. What happens in these lines?
int precision = MAX (mpz_sizeinbase (bound_one, 2),
mpz_sizeinbase (bound_two, 2));
if (precision > BITS_PER_WORD)
{
gloog_e
16 matches
Mail list logo