within the gcc
source for stucture definitions.
These sections contain DWARF debugging information.
You can find documentation about DWARF at dwarf.freestandards.org.
--
Michael EagerChair, DWARF Workgroup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
o the noconfigdirs list) or fix libssp/configure?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
patch, libstdc++ builds OK.
Following the discussion on that thread, it seems
like the suggestion is that one should build gcc
for some other similar target, such as powerpc-eabisim,
which sort of misses the goal of building powerpc-eabi.
So, what is the right way to build g++ for powerpc-eabi?
-
iled:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28596
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
fine_expand,
but I have a feeling that I'm missing something that would make
it clear how these two templates interact. Clearly, the define_insn
template says that when the insn pattern is found, generate the
"fneg" instruction. What is the define_expand template doing?
Thanks!
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
1 or 0 depending on whether the
single-or double-precision FPU was available, as specified by a new
option -mfpu=. There would be some added instruction patterns
for the single-precision operations.
Does this sound like a reasonable approach or is there a better
way to do this?
--
Michael Eager
David Edelsohn wrote:
Michael Eager writes:
Michael> I'm adding support to GCC for a different PPC floating point unit.
Michael> It's similar to the standard PPC FPU in that it supports most of
Michael> the same instructions and all operation are in FP registers.
Michael&
d to be significant problems
with my understanding of GIMPLE. Adding the line number info will
also change the compression ratios though I expect it will only make
them larger.
I invite your discussion, comments and general venting of personal
frustrations.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
ce
between poor practice and good practice usually comes down to that
poor practice "works perfectly, in our case, under some restrictions",
while good practice just "works perfectly".
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Michael Eager wrote:
Miguel Angel Champin Catalan wrote:
Hello:
We are students of computer sciences in the Santa Maria University,
Chile. We just want to know if the function "gets" it's too dangerous
for a warning. The fact is that our teacher's assistant give us
linker?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
GCC accepts the -T
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 15:00 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
GCC passes a linker script to the linker for some
targets (e.g., powerpc-eabi with -mads). If you specify a
linker script using -Wl,-T,script.ld, you get both
passed to the linker and there may be conflicts.
Is there
inker scripts
to ld, along with whatever libraries or support files
(like crti.o) are needed. The spec file insures that
the correct options are passed.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
automatically
to describe the memory layout of a board or processor. There is
no compelling reason to prohibit this *correct* linker script from
being passed to the gcc driver and from there to ld.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
mand.
I can then use -E or --print-search-paths or whatever to
figure out why the compiler cannot create an executable.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
ragmas" in the C code.
I think that I can use the preprocessore features to
"scan" the code I can obtain the informations I need
in a good way.
So, I ask you how can I get some docomuntation about C
preprocessor and how can I interface myself with it?
Have you looked at cpp? Or &q
us about how you want to solve some problem,
without telling us what the problem is. So every solution
is going to get the response "thanks, but that is what
I need".
If you want help with a problem, describe the problem.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Michael Eager wrote:
Matteo Fioroni wrote:
Thanks for your help, I saw the gcc -E output: but it
don't match my needs.
I've to interface the Preprocessor to get the tokens
(keyword, preprocessor directives, grammar, ecc..) it
analyzes on which I've to permorm some operations.
T
.
Possibly someone on the GCC mailing list can offer
some answer to your question.
One first suggestion I would have is that you compile
the source in question and take a look at the assembly
code which the compiler generates.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA
e are very few defines for __ELF__ in the GCC target files.
Why don't you put this in rtems.h?
Alternately, you might put it in microblaze-s.c, wrapped with
#ifdef OBJECT_FORMAT_ELF/#endif.
--
Michael Eager
On 7/21/21 5:22 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 7:12 PM Michael Eager <mailto:ea...@eagercon.com>> wrote:
On 7/21/21 2:28 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are in the process of porting RTEMS to the Microblaze and gcc does
>
ead of being an odd singleton which doesn't share.
I'm asking because I've seen a number of projects run into this
issue (xz,
elfutils, libfuse, libkcapi, cryptsetup).
And RTEMS.
--joel
Joel -- do you have a patch to add elfos.h to MicroBlaze?
--
Michael Eager
, improve the build process, fix a
number of bugs as well as make a number of enhancements.
DDD's maintainers are Stefan Eickler and Michael Eager. Please
send questions or comments to mailto:d...@gnu.org.
Information about DDD can be found on the DDD project page:
https://www.gnu.org/softwar
- Resolve 15+ bug reports
DDD's maintainers are Stefan Eickler and Michael Eager. Please
send questions or comments to mailto:d...@gnu.org.
Information about DDD, including how to download and build DDD sources,
can be found on the DDD project page: https://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/
--
Michael Eager
/listinfo/dwarf-discuss.
For additional information, please contact Michael Eager (mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]).
--
Michael Eager, Chair, DWARF Workgroup[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
bugger etc..) only work with
DWARF2. So I guess the OVERRIDE_OPTIONS hook is the way to go.
Or fix the tools to understand DWARF 4. (Sometimes easier said than done.)
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
mittee get an appropriate tag into the next
version of DWARF?
(I've filed bug 59051 for the lack of use of DW_tag_restrict_type for
restricted pointers.)
Hi Joseph --
Can you go to http://dwarfstd.org/Comment.php and submit a description
of the change in C11 and a request that this be adde
sion of gcc and investigate
this failure, but I won't be able to look at this for about two weeks.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
microblaze-rtems is almost identical to microblaze-elf.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
On 11/26/13 08:08, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 07:50:34 -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
On 11/25/13 19:26, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Build logs at
http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=39192
http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id
On 11/26/13 08:16, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 08:13:12 -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
On 11/26/13 08:08, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Thanks for looking into the issue anyways! (...and what do you
think about adding a microblazeel target to the list?)
Sounds OK to me.
Any
of
the DWARF Standard can be found here: http://dwarfstd.org/Download.php
Please feel free to forward this email to anyone or any list
where it seems appropriate.
--
Michael EagerChair, DWARF Standards Committee
ea...@eagercon.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HomePage.
Of course, you can always read the source code.
Let me know if you have specific questions about MicroBlaze.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
you post a small program which creates output like this,
along with output from readelf -w or dwarfdump?
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
The general answer to the question "how much effort for someone who doesn't know GCC
internals"
is "lots".
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
inter, not
the stack pointer, so it will not tell you how the calling function modifies
the stack before or after the call.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
gcc/dwarf*.[ch] and associated files in
the include directory.
I'd like the steering committee to consider this proposal.
I'm happy to recommend Cary as DWARF maintainer.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
that the DWARF registers map one-to-one to
hardware registers. You could define a DWARF register which represents
the FP register, spanning two hardware registers.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
[gt ge lt le gtu geu ltu leu])
Using UNSPEC and code interators should be unrelated.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
hat is going on?
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
#if 0
mb-gcc -O3 -mhard-float -fdump-rtl-all -c s.c -save-temps
#endif
typedef unsigned char uchar;
typedef struct {int x,y,info, dx, dy, I;} CORNER_LIST[15000];
susan_corners(in,r,bp,max_no,corner_lis
On 02/13/2013 02:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2 (and gcc-head) compared with older (gcc-4.1.2).
Both are compiled using -O3.
One test case that I have has a
On 02/13/2013 11:24 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:36:46AM +0100, Michael Eager wrote:
On 02/13/2013 02:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I patched the code to only count the occurrence if the
locations are different. Any idea if that has adverse
consequences?
I would expect that to work. But before bringing it back to mainline
I'd like to find
ccurrences += count_occurrences (PATTERN (insn), XEXP (i1, 0), 0);
}
Sure enough, i1 matches substed.
reg_equiv_memory_loc[regno] (the source for substed) is the same as
reg_equiv_alt_mem_list[regno].
Why is this unexpected and what might cause it?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm trying to understand an assertion failure in reload1.c:8135.
In delete_output_reload(), I'm getting an assertion failure
in this code:
for (i1 = reg_equiv_alt_mem_list [REGNO (reg)]; i1;
ons? (BTW I'm running aclocal v. 1.10, autoconf v. 2.61)
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
e/autoconf/autoconf/lang.m4 says that is
provided by both autoconf-2.61-9 and autoconf-2.59-12. So
I really don't know whether 2.61 has been replaced by 2.59
or not.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
I'm trying to update configure in gcc/libstdc++-v3.
Provided you have the correct versions of autoconf and automake, as
indicated, just running autoreconf certainly works.
Not for me. :-(
Autoreconf gives the same errors from aclocal.
--
Mi
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Michael Eager wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 08:53:22PM CET:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
I'm trying to update configure in gcc/libstdc++-v3.
Provided you have the correct versions of autoconf and automake, as
indicated, just running autoreconf cert
Brian Dessent wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
I've noticed a problem with the patch:
if test "${with_newlib+set}" = set; then
AC_LIBTOOL_DLOPEN
fi
The test always succeeds. When $with_newlib is "yes",
${with_newlib+set} is "set".
If I change this
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
I've noticed a problem with the patch:
if test "${with_newlib+set}" = set; then
AC_LIBTOOL_DLOPEN
fi
The test always succeeds. When $with_newlib is "yes",
${with_newlib+set} is "set".
If I change
FLOAT"
"")
I've considered a couple variants. One (which is actually implemented
in my patch) has TARGET_DOUBLE_FLOAT imply TARGET_SINGLE_FLOAT, since
every DP FPU that is supported also supports SP operations, but I'd
prefer having the feature explicit. The other is
nd:SF 2 "gpc_reg_operand" "r")))]
"TARGET_HARD_FLOAT &&
(!TARGET_FPRS && TARGET_SINGLE_FLOAT)"
"efssub %0,%1,%2"
[(set_attr "type" "fp")])
for an instruction on E500 only with single precision FP.
(define_insn "fixuns_truncdfsi2"
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "gpc_reg_operand" "=r")
(unsigned_fix:SI (match_operand:DF 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "r")))]
"TARGET_HARD_FLOAT &&
(!TARGET_FPRS && TARGET_DOUBLE_FLOAT"
"efdctuiz %0,%1"
[(set_attr "type" "fp")])
for an instruction on E500 only with double precision FP.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:38AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
For an instruction supported on all variants (both BookE and E500)
with a double precision FPU.
I think you have your terminology switched. E500 is (very
approximately) an implementation of Book E; the
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Michael Eager wrote:
Xilinx has a PowerPC 405 processor with an attached
single precision floating point processor. I have a
patch which supports this FP unit, but want to clean
it up a bit before submitting it.
What do you propose as the function
register interlock.
Are there any targets with register interlock where
gcc handles moving instructions between conflicting
instructions?
Any suggestions on how this might be represented
in .md files? It doesn't seem that the pipeline
description would seem appropriate.
--
Michael Eager[
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have a processor which does not have hardware
register interlocks, somewhat like the MIPS I.
A register used in one instruction may not be
referenced for a certain number of instructions.
If I recall correctly, for the
psi2).
Try to avoid it.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
de base.
The engineer's definition of "available in May" is May 1.
The marketer's definition of "available in May" is May 30.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
es %i7+8.
It seems to me that the offset is necessary to unwind a frame
correctly (at least, if you use the CIE info). Is there any
reason to discard it?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
n the code which translates RTL to LocExpr not handling REG+offset,
I don't see a reason why REG+OFFSET is not valid, or why the comment says
that it is unnecessary. On Sparc, it's only unnecessary because Sparc
ignores the CIE.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo
on that I'm talking about exception
handling in gcc. I'm not.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
7;t need
correct CIE data. Debugging does.
My question was whether there was a good reason for ignoring
the offset in a RA expression.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
the call instruction address, not the address where the
function will return. Either you never hit that breakpoint,
or you hit it on a different iteration.
In any case, for Sparc, on entry to a function the CIE doesn't
even say that %o7 is the return address.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROT
GCC) 4.3.0 20070621 (experimental) Revision X
Perhaps it can also include branch name.
I have the following in my build script:
echo $VERSION > $BLDDIR/gcc/gcc/DEV-PHASE
$VERSION shows up in place of "experimental".
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
minor bug fix for a non-existent
minor release.
The version numbering scheme correlating to functional changes
is more valuable than any (IMO insubstantial) benefit of
identifying the change in license version.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325
;s wishes
Bernd> do not come into play.
Wrong. The original author can license his or her own code to
others using different licenses.
Under the license assignment, both FSF and the author can
license the code under different licenses.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park
e distributors
of gcc who are unwilling to distribute code licensed under GPLv3.
And anyone using any past release.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
, like BITS_PER_WORD.
Comments?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
2. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last GPLv2 release. The FSF will permit
backports from mainline to GCC 4.2.1, if necessary, to be downlicensed
to GPLv2
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It seems to me that the same assembly code should be generated
independent of whether gcc is run on a 32-bit or 64-bit
host and all of these HOST_* tests should actually be
target domain parameters, like BITS_PER_WORD.
Mike Stump wrote:
On Jul 12, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
I was looking through dwarf2out.c, tracking down the
cause for different assembly code being generated
when gcc was run on 32-bit and 64-bit hosts.
When QAing, it is very useful to be able to compare two .s files. This
4-bit targets?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
uot;FSF owns the code" so "FSF dictates the rules"
is one of the least appealing aspects of this.
[I'll put away my soap box. For now.]
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Eric Botcazou wrote:
How does this work for 32-bit hosts and 64-bit targets?
Some (most?) 64-bit targets require a 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT.
Meaning that I can't build gcc-ppc64 on an IA32 host?
Yuck! So much for cross-platform tools.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd.,
operability issue doesn't make it one.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
de under GPLv2 if they
do something as innocuous as apply a publicly posted patch.
Try a pragmatic approach, rather than a dogmatic approach.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
ve for many years. It doesn't stop being
effective overnight.
Let's tone down the high falootin' rhetoric about defending freedoms
and discuss the pragmatic issues of how to manage licenses in a
real world with real companies and real lawyers and real concerns.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
rent situation, knowing the version number
will not tell you whether the code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv3.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Robert Dewar wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3. (This is unless FSF agrees with Mark&#
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3. (T
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not until someone updates the txt. Which should happen quickly,
but if someone applies a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch,
the entire branch becomes GPLv3, whether the COPYING file was
updated or not.
Come on,
othetically might have
been created under a different license, it remains GPLv3. It's not whether
the patch is indistinguishable, its that it was not independently developed.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
der out of a "GPLv3-licensed" svn and give an
exact copy of it to my friend, I would have to remember to tell her that
the file isn't licensed under what it says it's licensed under. That's
also not good.
Yes, the situation seems chaotic and confusing. Not a good thing.
PLv2 sources, not looking at your patch or any
GPLv3 sources, in which case it would be either coincidence if they
happened to be identical, or a requirement of the context.
But this second patch is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
was covered by.
This is why there are "clean room" implementations of proprietary software
-- to prevent just the copyright contamination which you describe.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
said elsewhere that nobody was allowed to take
one and the sign on the dispenser was incorrect.)
There's no contract. This seems to be a common confusion, which FSF has tried
to dispel. A contract requires two (or more) parties to come to an agreement.
GPL is a license. The GPL is not
which you describe.
Yes, but we're talking about *patches* here, where the underlying license
derives from the file being patched, not the patch itself. There's a big
difference!
I was talking about patches -- copyrightable creative works which may
be assigned and licensed. You appear to b
Robert Dewar wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
GPL is a license. The GPL is not a contract. There isn't even an
implied
contract.
You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
I am not a lawyer, but there is
will take many months.
The concern which I raised is not about the GPLv3. It is in the
policy decisions which FSF makes about applying patches to source
which was previously released under GPLv2. This is not something
which the FSF disclosed in the past.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You want to mix two different things and call them the same.
The only part which matters is the creative changes.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
quires
consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
license. They have
a legal right to use the software.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
speaking)
under which that software can be used.
No, no, no. A consideration is an exchange of value. It's part of a contract.
A license is not a contract.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
ing under specified conditions. It's
unilateral -- the receiving party is anonymous. Agreement to abide by
the conditions of the license is (a) not a meeting of the minds, it's a
condition of the license, and (b) it's not a valuable consideration, again
it is a condition of the lice
Dave Korn wrote:
On 16 July 2007 18:51, Michael Eager wrote:
I'm done with this discussion. It's not going anywhere.
That would have been just a tad more impressive if it wasn't at the end of a
long stretch of self-justification. As it was, it comes across more like
try
lp; future replies should only go to gcc-help.
You can see if there is debugging information in the object file
file by running "readelf -aw" and searching for the name. You may
want to check both the object file and the executable. If the symbol
appears to be defined correctly, then the
be directly in bits,
without any reference to bytesize.
Is there a different way to define word-addressed targets?
Or should I just pretend it has byte addressing?
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
or 32-bit and 64-bit
operations respectively.
Well, can't do that. This is not target dependent.
DImode gets defined, and used, for long long in unwind-dw2.c.
--
Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
101 - 200 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
