Hi,
I have the following problem with a back end I've written after the following
changes in the machine header, to tell GCC that the machine is word-addressed
with a word width of 16 Bit:
#define BITS_PER_UNIT 16
#define UNITS_PER_WORD 1
#define BITS_PER_WORD 16
A
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 15:45, you wrote:
>-fdump-rtl-all-details will give you an idea of how far the compiler
> gets, and thus maybe a clue to which pass runs into problems. Also, a
> backtrace from the debugger is nice to have.
Here is the backtrace from gdb:
Breakpoint 2, rtl_verify_
On Thursday 19 October 2006 23:10, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>Also, looking at the insns added during the vregs pass, notice that some
> of them use HImode registers. Have you forgotten to change something from
> HImode to QImode? Maybe your Pmode? For example, this sequence is clearly
>
Hi!
I need some clearification concerning the responsibilities of Middle End, Back
End, the generation of the control flow graph (CFG) and RTL. I looked at
several articles about the internal structure of the GCC and looked at the
internals documentation. However, I would like to have a second
On Thursday 14 December 2006 08:32, you wrote:
> The data structures for the CFG are in basic-block.h. These data
> structures are most definitely *not* incorporated into the RTL
> structures. The CFG is independent of the intermediate
> representations for the function instructions. It has to b
Hi!
Im writing a backend for GCC 4.0-2 for a simple machine with a rather limited
instruction set. With the kind help of Ian Lance Taylor I was already able to
solve a few big problems I had earlier. Now I am stuck on another problem
that IMHO concerns reloading.
Most of the instructions of t
On Monday 10 April 2006 19:48, you wrote:
> Can it at least add (small) immediates to registers?
Nope, sry. The only instructions that take other arguments than registers are
the aforementioned LDL/LDH (load low/high), branch instructions (they take a
memory address) and four bit operations whic
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 15:43, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 07:47:32AM +0200, Frank Riese wrote:
> > On Monday 10 April 2006 19:48, you wrote:
> > > Can it at least add (small) immediates to registers?
> >
> > Nope, sry. The onl
On Monday 24 April 2006 17:59, Frank Riese wrote:
> With my limited experience I would say that this tells me that the compiler
> gradually uses up all available registers and then, instead of freeing one,
> it complains that it hasn't any left (as a reminder: registers 3-7 are my
