"Eric Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone could tell how to be a gcc maintainer? Is there any
> requirement? Actually, my previous work are all not based on the gcc
> trunk. So no patch submitted. Anyway, it's cool to contribute :-)
The usual procedure is to write a bunch of good patches
José Manuel Marín Román <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm a spanish senior c++ development and I would like to contribute to
> gnu compiler in some way you consider neccesary.
>
> My expertise is on graphic and games technologies, such as 3d realtime
> engine programming, raytracing, artificial in
Anna Sidera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following code works in lcc in windows but it does not work in
> gcc in unix. I think it is memory problem. In lcc there is an option
> to use more temporary memory than the default. Is there something
> similar in gcc?
In gcc, no. But if you are usi
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> int foo (int *__restrict p)
> {
> int *__restrict q;
> int v;
> q = p + 1;
> q = q - 1;
> v = *q;
> *p = 1;
> return v + *q;
> }
> extern void abort (void);
> int main()
> {
> int i = 0;
> if (foo (&i) != 1)
> abort ();
> retur
Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This program appears to me to be invalid according to C99 6.7.3.1,
>> which is the only definition of restrict that we have.
>>
>> If P is assigned the value of a pointer expression E that is based
>> on another restricted pointer object P2, ass
"Cheng bin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1 : At the end of that makefile , There is a section noted as
> "Regenerating top level configury".
> It is clear what it do, but for what? Where is this piece of
> code used in building procedure?
Those pieces of code are used by developers if and
Daniel Kasak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm experiencing segfaults with applications that use fontconfig, only
> if fontconfig is compiled with -fweb -ftracer. In full, I used:
>
> -march=athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fweb -ftracer
>
> I have seen a very similar bugs reported at:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo
Alex Turjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for answer but Im not able to make it work; I dont know how
> to extract the specific slot-usage (out of a number of an
> alternatives) out of the RTL insn description.
> Is there some get_attr_ for this?
You would have to invent the attribute. T
Alex Turjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Im now looking the in gcc mainline to find when an instruction (with
> alternative resource utilizations) is issued which of the resources
> are used.
This is described using define_insn_reservation and so forth in the MD
file. This is well documented in
Alex Turjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I use as atribute of one of the instructions the following
> define_insn_reservation:
> (define_insn_reservation "vmove" 1 "vector_type" "vmove") "c_valu_1|c_vlsu_1")
>
> As you can see vmove has two alternative reservation : c_valu_1 or c_vlsu_1,
> wher
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm running into a situation where reload is replacing
> a pseudo-register in an insn with a memory reference.
> The problem is that this is happening in a memory ref.
>
> The initial pattern is something like
>
> (set (reg/v:SI 1) (mem/s:SI (plus:SI
>
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The insn was previously recognized before the following
> code at the end of reload replaces the pseudo-reg with the reg-equivalent:
>
> 1107 /* Now eliminate all pseudo regs by modifying them into
> 1108 their equivalent memory references.
> 1109
"Alexandre Pereira Nunes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can provide these, tough as for the copyright assignment, the
> document mentions I can declare the changes in public domain, and
> since I already published something (which may or may not be used by
> someone in the future), I hereby
Nils Pipenbrinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am now a lawyer, but as far as I know in my country (germany) it is
> not possible to decline copyright (called Urheberrecht here - it's not
> exactly the same but close). You can give away the usage-rights to
> your code at will and for free (by pu
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Is "gcc -r" officially supported by gcc?
>
> It apparently works, but I can't find it documented anywhere in GCC's
> documentation.
When invoking the linker, a -r option on the command line will be
passed to the linker. The same is true of -A, -d,
David Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What functions from the GNU's C standard library ( libc ) are thread
> safe? Of a particular interest are transcendental functions ( like
> exp', 'sin' etc. ) - are they thread safe?
>
> Are there any requirements/guidelines/assurances regarding thread
>
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what would you recommend: To use "gcc -r" or "gcc -Wl,-r" ?
Ah, when you put the question like that, I would recommend "ld -r".
This is the one case where you get no advantage from using the gcc
driver to invoke the linker, and it can actually mess
Marco Correia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following is a simplification of my problem:
>
> struct Base { virtual void func() = 0; };
>
> struct Derived : Base { inline void func() {...} };
>
> Derived& d = ...;
> d.func();
>
> This last call is not being inlined. Is this normal? (As I said m
David Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought that "gcc" mailing list is appropriate as I need this
> information in order to implement auto-parallelizer for the
> gcc-generated code. How the gcc-supported parallelizer (
> "-ftree-parallelize-loops=n" ) treats the calls to library routines
"Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
> 1) Is the machine dependent reorganization phase occuring after or
> before the register allocation phase?
After. See passes.c.
> 2) Also, is it possible for me to add my own "demands" (or suggestions)
> into the register allocator?
It really depends on what you m
"Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
> This is what I want to do: I want the scheduling phase to say an RTX X
> must be allocated registers from Register CLASS A. So how can I tell
> register allocator to do this?
Not in any convenient way, no. The closest you could come would be to
have several different
Chandra Prakash Garg writes:
> checking for
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc...
> /home/abhijitd/gcc/gcc-4.3.2/host-i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc/xgcc
> -B/home/abhijitd/gcc/gcc-4.3.2/host-i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc/
> -B/home/abhijitd/gcc/gcc-4.3.2/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
> -B/home/abhijitd/gcc/gcc-4.3.2/i686-pc-linu
"Guo, Xuepeng" writes:
> I am working on an optimization which happens at split2 stage. I
> need to determine whether the destination operand of the current RTL
> (which is a register operand) will be referred by other RTL through
> MEM within a basic block. I see there is a function named
> reg_
"Guo, Xuepeng" writes:
> Thanks for your comments. It's not exactly the entire basic
> block. It should be from the current RTL to the end of the current
> basic block. As you know GCC will optimize "addl %ebx, %eax" to
> "leal (%ebx, %eax), %eax" to avoid the flag register dependency
> through a
"Gordon Magnusson" writes:
> I read http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html but wasn't completely
> enlightened.
>
> If I'm building C and C++ (i.e. configuring with
> --enable-languages=c,c++) and I want to build gcc, g++, and libstdc++
> with -O3 instead of the default (which I believe is -g -O2
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> Here the bitpos = 0, bitsize = 52. HOST_WIDE_INT for our processor
> is 32, though 64-bit long long type is supported. The marked
> statement produces a mask of 0xf, thus causes the upper 32-bit
> removed later. Is this a potential bug, or did I miss something?
gc
"Peter O'Gorman" writes:
> When building qt-3.3.8 and wxGTk on Tru64 UNIX 5.1
> (alphaev67-dec-osf5.1) with gcc-4.2.4, we got linker failures about
> duplicate non-virtual thunks, e.g. from qt:
> /usr/ccs/bin/ld:
> .obj/release-shared-mt/qmotifdnd_x11.o: non-virtual thunk to
> QDragMoveEvent::~Q
"Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
> I printed out the RTL dump using the following code during the machine
> dependent reorganization
>
>
> FOR_EACH_BB(bb) {
> for (insn = bb_head(bb); insn != bb_end(bb); insn = NEXT_INSN(insn))
> {
>if (INSN_P(insn))
> print_rtl_single(insn);
>
"Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
> Thanks for your help. What I mainly want to do is to make some
> hardware decisions by looking at the instructions inside a Basic block.
> Ths is why I was using the "FOR_EACH_BB" function.
>
> When and where can I intercept the RTL such that I can get the
>
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> 2008-11-18 Gerald Pfeifer
>
> * doc/install.texi (alpha*-dec-osf*): Remove note on 32-bit
> hosted cross-compilers generating less efficient code.
This is OK.
Thanks.
Ian
JCX writes:
> Hello, I am working on a gcc porting for a new instruction. This
> instruction needs to move data from memory to two registers. So I use
> the SET rtx, and the dest of SET is an UNSPEC rtx with two registers.
> By using such a rtl pattern, gcc performs very differently. It makes
> m
"Ye, Joey" writes:
> Option 3: Define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT as a fixed value 32 bytes, for
> all x86 target, and extend to 64 or more bytes in future.
Assuming that code compiled with -mavx is intended to interoperate
with code compiled without -mavx, I believe that this is the only
viable long-term
"Richard Guenther" writes:
> As there is no hardware implementation of AVX available I think
> we definitely should stay with 16 for 4.4.
That makes sense.
> And IMNSHO also for
> all future - __attribute__((aligned)) is part of the ABI, and if it is
> not the only user of BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT the
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Fixing BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT to 16 may require extensive changes.
> I am thinking to add DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT with
>
> #ifndef DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT
> #define DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT
> #endif
>
> and use it only for attribute((aligned)).
This does need to be done, but DEFAUL
"Richard Guenther" writes:
>> That is, there are two conflicting requirements: maintaining a stable
>> ABI on a single platform, and supporting a cross-platform API. I
>> would argue that code which runs on a single platform and needs a
>> stable ABI should avoid __attribute__ ((aligned)). That
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi
> ===
> --- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 4884)
> +++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
> @@ -3697,9 +3697,8 @@ that forces the union to be double-word
> As in the precedi
Jakub pointed out on gcc-patches that changing the value of
__attribute__ ((aligned)) has difficulties.
Historically this value was never intended to be fixed for all time.
For example, for the i386, it was last changed here:
Tue Jan 18 16:19:55 MET 2000 Jan Hubicka
* i386.h (BIGGEST_
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> 2) Introduce __attribute__ ((aligned (max))). This will be documented
>> as having the largest value available for any version of the
>> architecture, and thus in particular it may
"Ye, Joey" writes:
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]:
>> Therefore, I propose that we do the following:
>>
>> 1) Introduce __attribute__ ((aligned (scalar))). This will be
>>documented as having a fixed value for each ABI. The
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Given that __attribute__ ((aligned (max))) may change, I don't
>> think it is very useful. A portable generic memory allocator should
>> take an additional argument for alignment.
>>
>
> If we really want the maximum useful alignment for the target machine
> we are compiling
Per Ekman writes:
> Is it possible to get hold of the calling function (in the compiled
> program, not in gcc itself) in c-typeck.c:build_function_call()?
It's in the global variable current_function_decl.
Ian
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> It it hard to guess what the alignment should be for C++ new operator.
> Whatever you choose today may not be appropriate tomorrow
> or for others. I think g++ should issue a warning when new operator
> is used on a type whose alignment greater than MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT:
The
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>>> It it hard to guess what the alignment should be for C++ new operator.
>>> Whatever you choose today may not be appropriate tomorrow
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> We can solve it with
>
> 1. A target should define MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT properly.
> 2. g++ should issue an error when the default new operator
> is used on a type whose alignment is greater than
> MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT.
> 3. It is user's responsibility to provide a new operator
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> For 4.4, we can apply my patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00367.html
>
> and update document with
>
> As in the preceding examples, you can explicitly specify the alignment
> (in bytes) that you wish the compiler to use for a given variable or
> structur
"Richard Guenther" writes:
> I don't think we should encourage more uses of __attribute__((aligned)).
But then how can one write a general purpose portable memory
allocator?
Ian
Michael Meissner writes:
>> For that matter, don't we have a problem on x86 GNU/Linux, where
>> malloc returns an 8-byte alignment but attribute((aligned)) is a 16
>> byte alignment?
>
> In that case, malloc should be changed to return items that are 16-byte
> aligned
> if any type needs 16-byte
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> For that matter, don't we have a problem on x86 GNU/Linux, where
>> malloc returns an 8-byte alignment but attribute((aligned)) is a 16
>> byte alignment?
>
> I don't think it is the same as MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT.
> attribute((aligned)) is something determined by compiler,
> w
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> There are many ways to align data without exposing it in the
>> ABI--e.g., the alignment of a global array is not part of the ABI, in
>> that nothing breaks if the alignment is increased. Also, there are
>> many programs which simply don't care about an external ABI.
>>
>
>
"Richard Guenther" writes:
>> There are many ways to align data without exposing it in the
>> ABI--e.g., the alignment of a global array is not part of the ABI, in
>> that nothing breaks if the alignment is increased. Also, there are
>> many programs which simply don't care about an external ABI
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> You can't use _attribute__ ((aligned(max))) directly with memory
> allocator. How about a new macro, __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__?
You can use __attribute__ ((aligned)), you just need to also use
__alignof__. I have no objection to __BIGGEST_ALIGMENT__ but that is
a separate discus
"Richard Guenther" writes:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> "Richard Guenther" writes:
>>
>>>> There are many ways to align data without exposing it in the
>>>> ABI--e.g., the alignment of a global array
IainS writes:
> I need to make a test expanded from ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL_REF that is
> language dependent (on objc/objcxx).
>
> It's not clear where the best/proper place to put the code is.
>
> if I put it in {stub,act}-objc.c that's fine for c, c++, objc and
> objc++ ...
> ... but it means that st
Adam Nemet writes:
> struct s
> {
> char a:4;
> char b:8;
> char c:4;
> } __attribute__ ((packed))
>
> is 3 bytes long because b gets pushed to the next byte boundary.
Sounds like a bug.
> The reason for this behavior is that finish_struct does not propagate packed
> to fields whose type
"Vincent R." writes:
> I am working on a gcc-4.1.2 and I would like to know how the prologue
> length from a function can be calculated.
The question is not well formed. The instructions which are part of
the prologue (e.g., saving callee-saved registers onto the stack) can
be interspersed with
"Vincent R." writes:
> To locate appropriate handlers when an exception occurs in Win32
> environments other than x86,
Note that as far as I know, gcc only supports win32 for ARM and x86
(and x86_64, I guess, or maybe that is win64). So I assume you are
talking about ARM.
> The portion of th
"Vincent R." writes:
> No you are right, prologue definition in my context is :
> Typically, a prolog segment contains separate sequences of instructions
> that perform the following tasks:
>
> * Allocate a stack frame.
> * Save incoming argument registers.
> * Set up the frame pointe
"Sean D'Epagnier" writes:
> I have a rule in machine descriptor:
>
> (define_insn "fract2"
> [(set (match_operand:FIXED1 0 "register_operand" "")
> (fract_convert:FIXED1 (match_operand:FIXED2 1
> "register_operand" "")))]
> ""
> "* return fract_out (insn, operands, 1, NULL);"
> [(
"andrew babanin" writes:
> I am working on the remote procedure call system integrated into C
> language. System called CRPC,
> it consists of C wrapper compiler and shared library. Wrapper compiler
> works with GCC.
>
> New RPC system helps you develop socket based applications. With the
> syste
baver writes:
> A sample code listing is at the bottom of the email, as well as the lines
> we've added to opcodes/mips-opc.c for our opcodes.
>
>
>
> Anyone know how to stop the register from being stored and read from on the
> stack? We've defined it as
>
> volatile register int idx asm(
andrew babanin writes:
> In attach you can find example program,
> client and server side. And doc for the system as README file.
> The newest version of the sources can be downloaded from
> crpc at sf dot net.
Thanks. This does seem useful for some people. I would be interested
in hearing tho
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> According to current GCC internal manual.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/File-Framework.html#index-TARGET_005fASM_005fNAMED_005fSECTION-4335
>
> - Target Hook: void TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION (const char *name, unsigned int
> flags, unsigned int align)
>
> Out
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>> I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
>>
>> $ cat md5.sum | grep gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>
>> d3338b75fa6f83be08908b1eed56d439 gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>
>> $ md5sum gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>> cc3c5565fdb9ab87a05ddb106b
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> My website isn't visible to public. Also it isn't really benchmark since
> I only run functional tests. My reports only show pass or which tests
> failed.
For what it's worth, Diego is posting his spec runs on my website, at
http://www.airs.com/dnovillo/spec2000/ . I'd be ha
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>>>> I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
>>
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 06:52:18PM +1100, zol...@bendor.com.au wrote:
>> // Debug( tst->value );
>>
>>if ( ! tst ) {
>>ptr->next = (void *) 0;
>>break;
>>}
>
> This optimization comes up on the list frequently. Do folks thi
Laurent GUERBY writes:
> Just curious: is there a "portable" way to read from memory
> address zero in C code? "portable" here means likely to work
> on most compilers without exotic compile flags in 2009.
char *my_null_pointer;
char fn() { return *my_null_pointer; }
It will be quite a while be
Robert Dewar writes:
> Interestingly, my viewpoint on this from the compiler domain might
> seem to be quite inconsistent. I think it is generally a bad idea
> for compilers to aggressively optimize based on assumptions that
> programs are free of these kinds of mistakes. I would only be in
> fav
Joern Rennecke writes:
> So I was wodering if we could get a good first-order approximation
> by placing library code that is called frequently together with the
> code that is calling it.
A co-worker of mine at Google did some experiments along those lines
using gold. He was not able to demons
David Edelsohn writes:
> The GCC Steering Committee, along with the Free Software Foundation
> and the Software Freedom Law Center, is pleased to announce the release
> of a new GCC Runtime Library Exception.
>
> This license exception has been developed to allow various GCC
> libraries to upgrad
Chris Lattner writes:
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Laurent GUERBY writes:
>>
>>> Just curious: is there a "portable" way to read from memory
>>> address zero in C code? "portable" here means likely to work
&g
Chris Lattner writes:
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Chris Lattner writes:
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Laurent GUERBY writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Just cur
Joern Rennecke writes:
> The definition of 'independent module' is such that it does not include files
> that make no use of any runtime interfaces at all. E.g. a newlib file
> is an independent module if it uses a multiply and that multiply is
> implemented as a libgcc function all by gcc, but
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> I got a request to try "FOO.H" if foo.h doesn't exist when dealing
> with
>
> #include "foo.h"
>
> Any comments?
Please, no.
They could use header.gcc instead.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cppinternals/Files.html
Ian
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>>> I got a request to try "FOO.H" if foo.h doesn't exist when dealing
>>> with
>>>
>>> #include &
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Say I have
>
> #include "Foo/Foo.h"
>
> I want to map it to foo/foo.h on disk. Can I map Foo to foo with
> header.gcc in directory, foo?
Yes. Put this at top level (i.e., in the same directory where the
directory "foo" is):
Foo/Foo.h foo/foo.h
Then #include "Foo/Foo.h" wil
Rohit Arul Raj writes:
> I am working with GCC 3.4.6 for a private target. The Alignment of all
> pointer variables in my target is supposed to be 16bits. But it seems
> that for void pointers, the alignment by default is taken as 8 bits. I
> have defined the following macros to get the desired a
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
>> 2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>>>
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary c
Florian Weimer writes:
> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
directly by s
Joern Rennecke writes:
>>> Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
>>> which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
>>> libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
>>> That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not help her
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
>> that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
>> it.
>
> There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
&
Joern Rennecke writes:
>> The license says that you have permission to propagate works when
>> certain conditions apply. It does not say that you do not have
>> permission if certain other conditions apply. Therefore, if certain
>> conditions apply, you have permission. It is not necessary for
Joern Rennecke writes:
>> > The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
>> > Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
>> > to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
>>
>> I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor:
>
>> Florian Weimer writes:
>>
>>> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
>>> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
>>> to a "high-leve
Joern Rennecke writes:
> You seem to be saying that I could do incremental linking, first
> linking libgcc against the Independent Modules, slapping my own
> license on the partially linked work of Target Code (provided all
> used pieces of libgcc are target code - that is hardly ever the
> case,
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
> more specific than combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules
> and anything else you feel like.
> Moreover, a typical link will contain Target Code which has not been
> generated by Eligibl
Joern Rennecke writes:
> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
> make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
> incorporate pieces of it. You'd only need to make sure that
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> Joern Rennecke writes:
>>
>>> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
>>> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
>>> make sure that th
After the e-mail flurry, here is my personal summary of the issues
regarding the GCC Runtime Library Exception
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html). I personally think
that this includes all the substantive issues which were raised,
though I understand that others may disagree.
* The
Sebastian Redl writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> LLVM byte code is generated by LLVM, not gcc. The question here is
>> whether it is desirable to permit using LLVM to generate LLVM byte
>> code and to then use GCC to turn that byte code into machine code.
>>
raja.sal...@iap-online.com writes:
> In gcc, while instruction scheduling can it be possible to suspend the
> scheduling for some instructions ? or
No. You can turn off instruction scheduling for the entire
compilation. You can use #pragma GCC optimize to turn scheduling off
for a specific func
Piotr Wyderski writes:
> The PE header walker is able to
> dump PE sections,
> but they have strange, numeric names, e.g.:
>
> sec[5]: name = /4
That strange numeric name is used when the section name is more than 8
characters long. The value after the '/' is an offset into the string
table.
I
raja.sal...@iap-online.com writes:
>>> Is there a way to make the instruction has to allocate to run without
>>> using the scheduler for particular instruction ?
>>
>> I don't understand the question.
>
> The target we are using supports parallel instruction execution, Max 7.
> For one cycle, one
"Brian O'Mahoney" writes:
> Two quick questions:
This message might have been better sent to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org.
Please consider taking any followups there. Thanks.
> (1) Is the feature roadmap for 4.5, 4.6 ... published anywhere
No. We're not that formal. Likely major features are LTO,
raja.sal...@iap-online.com writes:
> Can anybody explain about the unspec_volatile() rtl template usage, sample
> example and the purpose of it.
unspec_volatile is documented in the gcc internals manual. There are
many examples of using it in the existing gcc backends. The purpose
is to permit
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> I'm currently working on removing the constant folding and constant
> propagation because, on the architecture I'm working on, it is highly
> costly to move a constant into a register if the number is big (we can
> say over 16 bits).
>
> Currently, I've been looki
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> All of these have an outer code of SET. Therefore, I'm not quite
> positive of how I'm supposed to implement my rtx_cost function. Since
> I don't seem to get a choice between a set 0xcb03 and a (plus 0xcafe
> 5), how can I tell the compiler the different costs?
Bernd Schmidt writes:
>> But I don't know that gcc will implement the particular optimization
>> that you are looking for. I'm not aware of any other processor which is
>> able to load a large constant in a single instruction, but for which an
>> add instruction is cheaper if there is a similar
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> Could anyone explain to me what is difference between
> vec_shl_ and ashl3 patterns? It seems to me
> that both shift a vector operand 1 with scalar operand 2.
The difference is that with a vector mode gcc will look for the standard
name vec_shl_MODE, and with a non-vect
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> Thanks for prompt reply. Just out of curiosity. Isn't this naming
> convention for shift instructions inconsistent with other patterns?
> For example, we can define add3 and GCC will
> automatically use it by vectorization or in plus expression of two
> vector types. Why
1301 - 1400 of 3176 matches
Mail list logo
