Hello,
I compiled the gcc 6.3.0 for the leon2 processor for RTEMS (i.e.
sparc-rtems4.12-*). When linking a fortran program for the leon2 processor I
get undefined references for `__sync_bool_compare_and_swap_4' (see below).
According to the discussion on the rtems mailinglist the __sync_*-operat
test
http://tracking.desktop.al/tracking/unsubscribe?msgid=xuZXM1pE-Fzjv0SRTEY2-Q2
I guessed correctly - .al is Albania.
What's my prize ?
Forwarded Message
Subject: Test announcement
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:21:04 +
From: Noreply via gcc
Reply-To: Noreply , Noreply
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
test
http://tracking.desktop.al/tracking/unsubscribe?msgid=xuZX
> "This __sync_() stuff seems to be used in several places in GCC. So,
> changing libbacktrace is probably not enough. We need a general solution
> for the __sync_() builtins on RTEMS. I don't think GCC can be changed to
> emit __atomic_() calls for the __sync_() builtins (I would still try to
> as
On Montag, 27. Februar 2017 22:07:56 CET Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > "This __sync_() stuff seems to be used in several places in GCC. So,
> > changing libbacktrace is probably not enough. We need a general solution
> > for the __sync_() builtins on RTEMS. I don't think GCC can be changed to
> > emit _
> Is there an easy way to remove the libbacktrace dependency?
> Might something like that work?: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/553017/
Yes, even better, simply arrange for the __sync and __atomic support tests of
libbacktrace to fail on your target, possibly by using the same trick as HPUX.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:21:27AM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> some time ago IEEE 128-bit floating point support for PowerPC was
> added to GCC:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Ieee128PowerPC
>
> I noticed some issues for RTEMS in this area. Firstly, RTEMS had no
> __powerpc__ builti
Hello,
I wanted to ask a question regarding the compilation of code samples
like the following:
"
int a = fetch_value();
int b = fetch_value();
int c = SOME_BIG_CONSTANT;
if ( c - b < a)
{
...
}
pass_value(a + b);
return a + b;
"
The value "a + b" is used 3 times in this snippet, while the
