On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> That is news to me, but given the amount of test -a/-o uses e.g. in
> gcc/configure and hundreds of places, I'd say what we care is what is more
> portable to old shells.
No, we can’t care about that. If that were true, the _ && _ in the compil
On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here is my latest version of the patch.
>
> With this patch I get identical test_summary output on make -k check
> (completely serial testing) and make -j48 -k check from toplevel directory.
>
> Major changes since last version:
> 1) I've chang
On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here is my latest version of the patch.
I did a timing test:
Before:
real0m57.198s
user1m24.736s
sys 0m19.816s
after:
real0m28.224s
user1m27.823s
sys 0m22.374s
This is a -j70 run on a 64 core power7 of check-objc, I
On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
All the updates sound good.
> Regtested on x86_64-linux, without the patch toplevel make -k check
> took 8hrs3minutes (don't have time data for that run),
This confuses me, but, no matter. Isn’t 8hrs time data? :-)
> patch toplevel make -j48
On Oct 7, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
> for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
I endorse the change of default.
> The things I had to fix in the testsuite nicely reflect what we can expect
> in the real life:
A wiki page that
On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:06 PM, FX wrote:
> One question to build maintainers, and one patch submitted to top-level
> configure.ac
So, not sure who wants to review this. From the darwin perspective, Ok.
On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 03:27:40PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> This patch fixes that by ensuring that we print that unsupported message
>> only once.
>>
>> The resulting test result comparison diff is:
>> 2014-11-25 Tom de Vries
>>
>>
pproach to
> deleting files on the remote/host - we (erm, probably I, in truth) never got
> around to finding the right recipe.
>
> Might I suggest pulling it out of storage - and getting a review, perhaps
> from Mike who might be able to identify the best place to do the job.
I w
On Dec 16, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> My patch is different and I am attaching it (it is quite old, so it may not
> apply cleanly). The problem for more evolved form is that *.dSYM are
> directories and ASAICT there is no command in derange to remove them.
>
> At least my p
h are posted at
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02096.html.
>
> If Mike thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll do it. I’ve tested 4.8 with it multiple
> times, and it works well.
Ok.
On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> Currently gcc 4.8.4 does not bootstrap on darwin14 (Yosemite) due to pr61407.
>
> Why has it not been pushed in earlier?
No good reason. No one checked it into the release
On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:13 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> I've gotten rid of the Makefile and everything is run now from msabi.exp.
> I've also gotten rid of the header file, now that I know how to define a
> "_noinfo" fn pointer, so it's down to just 4 files: msabi.exp, gen.cc,
> msabi.c and do_tes
On Jan 11, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 12:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Would this then be the correct test?
Yeah, looks good.
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 8:17 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Simon Wright wrote:
>> I see that, in the GCC 7 Release Criteria, the Secondary Platforms list
>> includes i686-apple-darwin.
>>
>> Should this now be x86_64-apple-darwin? I've been building this since
On May 15, 2017, at 1:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Both SLE-11 and SLE-12 use dejagnu 1.4.4, so does openSUSE Leap 42.[12].
> Tumbleweed uses 1.6 so new SLE will inherit that. But I still do all
> of my testing on systems with just dejagnu 1.4.4.
So dejagnu is independent of most things and
On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The change I care about in 1.5.3
So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we update,
might as well get something that more people care about. 1.5.3 is in ubuntu
LTS 16.04 and Fedora 24, so it's been around awhile.
On Aug 2, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
>
> I'm working on a patch to modify the testsuite to obey the
> --load-average value if one is passed to make.
The code seems like a reasonable approach. Love to see numbers and test
scenarios so that others can tell if you've covered their us
The testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34971.c seems wrong to me. The type of
the expression x.b << 8 has size 8, a size 8 integral type is a 64-bit type.
If the result is a 64-bit type, then it's argument (x.b) was a 64-bit type. In
C++, we observed what they meant in the C language standard
On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Mike Stump wrote:
>> The testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34971.c seems wrong to me. The
>> type of the expression x.b << 8 has size 8, a size 8 integral type is a
>> 64-bit type. If the
On Aug 4, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote:
>>
>> On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> The change I care about in 1.5.3
>>
>> So, we haven't talked much about the ve
So, in c-common.c we have:
targetm.init_builtins ();
build_common_builtin_nodes ();
and in f95-1.c we have:
build_common_builtin_nodes ();
targetm.init_builtins ();
I would like to change c-common.c to match fortran, so that the target hook can
slightly alter (rename) the linkage name
On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I would say add a new hook that can be called from build_common_builtin_nodes
> instead.
Ok, thanks.
On Feb 15, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the steering committee has appointed
> Rainer Orth and Mike Stump testsuite maintainers.
Since I'm sure I can't figure out which patches are outstanding, could anyone
waiting on testsuite approval
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
Thanks for chipping in and helping out. I'm excited at having a Objective-C
compiler that works again on darwin.
That said, if people have any Objective-C codes, feel free to beat on them and
let
u getting a unique host tuple for this ? or are you extending x86_64-
linux-gnu ? so the only way of knowing which ABI is to check for the output
of the compiler+compiler flags ?
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> Many x32 bugs are fixed in kernel, glibc, binutils and GCC:
> >>
> >> https://sites.go
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:51:37 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 08:39:57 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so we get back to my original e-mail:
> >are you getting a unique host tuple for this ? or are you
> > extending x86_64-linux-gnu ? so the only way of
On Thursday, March 17, 2011 01:21:16 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ok, took long enough, but that answers most things. your usage of "x32-"
> > prefixed binaries in the documentation seems to imply a lot more than the
>
On Thursday, March 17, 2011 01:21:16 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in looking at the gcc files, it doesnt seem like there's any defines
> > setup to declare x32 directly. instead, you'd have to do something
> > l
On Monday, March 21, 2011 01:35:35 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2011 01:21:16 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > in looking at the gcc files, i
So, I was trying to debug some stuff with the top of the tree on a suse linux
x86_64 box and got:
(gdb) p mode
Unhandled dwarf expression opcode 0xf3
which I don't find entertaining. I know I _could_ install a new gdb, and most
likely this would fix the problem, but, I don't want to do that ri
So, I have a machine that has many styles of branches, among them, a normal
one, and a short version. The short version is cheaper (sometimes). The
regular one is 1 (predicted), 7 mis-predicted. The cost of mis-prediction can
be substantially higher depending upon what is in the cache. The s
On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Btw, see tree.def which says
>
> /* Represents viewing something of one type as being of a second type.
> This corresponds to an "Unchecked Conversion" in Ada and roughly to
> the idiom *(type2 *)&X in C. The only operand is the value to
...@gcc.gnu.org and try gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Thank you so much,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: mailer-dae...@sourceware.org [mailto:mailer-dae...@sourceware.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 5:34 PM
To: Mike Du
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm a
On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Interesting. I don't know why this doesn't happen on GNU/Linux.
It doesn't happen as the symbols in question are local on linux. collect2 runs
nm on public symbols looking for symbols of a particular form, it then builds
two lists, one for
he ARM backend that would justify
that I try some more with current GCC HEAD? Should I maybe try some more
with the linaro GCC branch? Are there things we can do to help getting
better ARM performance?
Cheers,
Mike
le mismatches. I only get a "few"
missing gcda files warning, but that's expected.
Cheers,
Mike
is
> usually a bad idea.
Experience shows that this isn't true.
> So - did you try FDO with -O2? ;)
Leads to roughly the same as -O3+FDO. The apk is also the same size, as
well as individual libraries.
Mike
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 11:25:56AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:32:05AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Well, but unless your training coverage is 100% all parts with no coverage
> > get optimized with -O3 instead of -Os. And I bet coverage for mozilla
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 08:51:41PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > +Mark who has done size optimization tuning with FDO.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We (Mozilla) are trying to get the best of the
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:25:23PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 August 2011 13:20, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >
> > I unfortunately hit several problems with gcc 4.7 (latest snapshot).
> > One is bug 50022 that I filed today.
> >
> > Another is the following err
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:20:37PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I unfortunately hit several problems with gcc 4.7 (latest snapshot).
> One is bug 50022 that I filed today.
>
> Another is the following error in stlport headers:
> error: invalid use of incomplete type 'std
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 04:05:25PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We (Mozilla) are trying to get the best of the ARM toolchain for our
> Android build. I recently built an Android Native-code Development Kit
> with GCC 4.6.1 and binutils 2.21.53, instead of GCC 4.4.3 and binut
On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The argument still holds that no reasonable memcpy implementation
> will reject the src == dest case.
Hum... Sounds like if that's the case that we should document it in the manual
as something we expect (requirement) of the memcpy implement
ld process
is just an executable that is linked against all these libraries.
Cheers,
Mike
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:22:16AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:27:23AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> >> > Maybe I have an idea as to why FDO doesn't work so well. Does the
&
Hello,
My name is Mike Dane from M&G Investment International United states. I want to
know if there is any availability for 5 guests who needs rooms, apartments and
meal services if possible. They are coming for visit in your city. If there is
availability, kindly let me know about the d
Hello,
My name is Mike Dane from M&G Investment International United states. I want to
know if there is any availability for 5 guests who needs rooms, apartments and
meal services if possible. They are coming for visit in your city. If there is
availability, kindly let me know about the d
geted on a
> different environment?
the mips people have been using a single tuple for multiple abis (n32 and
n64), and it doesn't appear to have been a blocker for them ...
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
on't even use autoconf
or any autotools and (2) they don't generally use sane tuples like the config
project).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Monday, October 03, 2011 19:47:57 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote:
> >> Most examples would be related to tools generating code.
> >>
> >> Suppose you
On Monday, October 03, 2011 23:26:25 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in terms of asm code, it's still possible to use ifdef's to handle cases
> > where you truly need different code paths.
>
> Yeah, we could have
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 22:55:35 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
> >> The current scheme documented on website
> >> (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) us
t make it
terribly useful. you still need to specify the -mabi flag whenever you execute
gcc, thus the tuple is just noise.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:28, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 1. The file name of an x32 binary package needs to be marked as x32.
i would think this would be completely a package manager issue and out
of scope for any ABI project such as x32
-mike
comes up every few years
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-help/2011-08/msg00073.html
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Friday 11 November 2011 16:27:18 Linas Vepstas wrote:
> Thanks Mike, silly me, it seems that crosstool_ng is exactly what I need!
>
> Off-topic, but .. anyone have a clue about why my canadian-cross of
> gcc is picking up its own internal limits.h, instead of glibc's
> l
:
http://www.incacosmetici.it/4c9ced/index.html
Yours truly,
Mike Anthony
2011 NACHA - The Electronic Payments Association
13450 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 100
Herndon, VA 20171
On Dec 10, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
If I now understand correctly, the symbols present in updated
versions of
libgcc that are not in the "stock" system libgcc on darwin - need
to be
mentioned in the stub libraries (ligcc_s.10.{4,5,...} ). The
emutls ones
were not present causin
On Dec 10, 2008, at 10:23 AM, IainS wrote:
I wonder what a good long-term solution would be?
You can try something like:
#define
REAL_LIBGCC_SPEC \
"%{static-libgcc|static: -lgcc_eh -
lgcc;\
shared-l
On Dec 10, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I am confused. Assuming one builds FSF gcc configured with
--enable-threads, shouldn't that create a libgcc.a for FSF gcc
containing the ___emutls_get_address and ___emutls_get_address
symbols?
No, the people that wrote ___emutls_get_address de
On Dec 10, 2008, at 3:24 PM, IainS wrote:
if one did -lgcc_s.10.x -lgcc_s.1 would that break it?
... should it not pick up only the unresolved symbols from s.1
I think this is the best long term solution. Things that can be found
from the system are, those that aren't, come from the newly
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Could you comment on...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-12/msg00310.html
Is there some specific reason it's done this way?
Yes, libgcc_s is carefully built with carefully controlled exports.
They are controlled by:
gcc/libgcc-std.ver
wh
On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Are there any observations that you could make concerning
the thread...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00297.html
Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have:
/* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits
we need the extr
On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have:
/* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits
we need the extra work here otherwise bits of gcc get very grumpy
when we ask for lower alignment. We could just reject values less
than 12
On Jan 21, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
So that invalidates your previously proposed patch? Or should I
still test it?
No need to test, I was wrong about that being the bit that causes it.
The description I last posted should be about right however, one just
needs a bit of time i
d the libgcc.map function to allow people to insert
$(FPBIT_FUNCS) and such into the map so libgcc_s.so exports these suckers ?
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 21:44:23 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > perhaps we need to extend the libgcc.map function to allow people to
> > insert $(FPBIT_FUNCS) and such into the map so libgcc_s.so exports these
> > suckers ?
>
> E
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 22:55:12 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 March 2009 21:44:23 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > perhaps we need to extend the libgcc.m
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:29 PM, Eric Siroker wrote:
> I'm getting the frontend for the Go programming language to work in
> Darwin. I encountered what looks like a bug in Darwin-specific gcc
> code.
You are obligated to spell the name of the section correctly...
$ cat t.s
.section __TEXT,__
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
> GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I'm neither. Chris
Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I'd recommend contacting
On Sep 10, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to take
that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> More seriously, the issue is copyright law. In order to write a
> front-end for GCC right now (or for a GCC front end to use another
> backend), you have to use a sufficient number of header files and
> interfaces of GCC that there's no question
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work as
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
> FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could
> change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
> license (we can for cod
On Sep 10, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I disagree. The copyright holder has decided that they want people to
> (among other things) allow people to distribute under GPLv2. We can't
> take that away without the permission of that holder.
Well, the words on their distribution say exa
On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> FSF *policy* (not the GPL) requires that all files have "GPLv3-or-later"
> license. The question is what permission you need to change a file
> that has a "GPLv2-or-later" license into the required one.
None, the GPL v2 clause grants this right
patch, but in the
> >
> > end it was just not a path we wanted to go down.
>
> I think the next decision is whether to require the host system to have
> zlib, much as gcc requires the host system to have gmp, mpfr, and mpc.
since the functionality in binutils is minor and op
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/rsync.html says 17 Gb.
>>
>> I just did it, and it's up to 22 Gb.
>
> Thanks for the heads up, DJ! I had a look, and it is, in fact,
> 184 Gb as of today, or 23 GB. (SCNR. :-)
You c
someone else needs to merge my patch i sent out.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:44:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 13:03:59 H.J. Lu wrote:
> > libiberty/.gitignore was added to src. But it isn't in gcc tree.
>
> i dont have access to the gcc tree, so i can only post patches. if someone
> wer
On Jan 23, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Is there an existing script that does such a diff? (In SVN or on
someone favourite test machine :).
Gotta love previously solved problems...
contrib/compare_tests
c -DBROKEN && ./a.out
this should be null: 0xe23bc395000
$ gcc-4.1.0-beta20060120 weak-test.c -DBROKEN && ./a.out
this should be null: (nil)
-mike
#include
extern int undef_func (void) __attribute__((weak));
int (*ptr_to_func)(void) = undef_func;
int main()
{
#ifdef BROKEN
printf("this
Sorry to reply late to this thread. First I think concentrating on a
native bytcode compiler for java makes excellent sense it decouples
you from the front end implementation. And I agree that the eclipse
compiler is a good choice. I'd have to add that jikes is also
resonable.
I would like to say
On Jan 28, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Carlos Barros wrote:
anyone can explain me this??
Wrong list, you might try gcc-help, otherwise you can find the
answers in the source code to the compiler, if you wish to dig into
it. In short, gcc has lots of latitude to do just about anything it
wants wit
On Jan 30, 2006, at 9:50 AM, murali wrote:
I am trying to change the number of registers for simplescalar's gcc
(2.7.2.3) compiler.
It is unlikely we're going to help much with 2.7.2.3, we'd recommend
up-porting to gcc 4.2 to start with.
I'm trying to get:
void foo() {
int rowfraclo[2];
rowfraclo[1] = 42;
asm ("movd mm6, %a0" : : "p" (rowfraclo+1));
}
to generate:
movd mm6, -4(%ebp)
at -O0. Currently we generate:
leal-8(%ebp), %eax
addl$4, %eax
movd mm6, (%eax)
With the below patch (still running
I was looking through the altivec.md file and found the below. Seems
like either they should all be "", or "i"; my guess, they should all
be "i".
(define_insn "altivec_vspltb"
[(set (match_operand:V16QI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
(vec_duplicate:V16QI
(vec_select:QI (match
On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Can someone help Lee with SSH and SVN checking issues?
I'd recommend contacting [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He has a read+write access to GCC sources.
Apparently not.
When bulk merging trunk to local release branch, svn reports whole
file conflicts as 'A'. :-(
svn status
after the merge is necessary to find the conflicts.
I'm using svn client:
mrs $ svn --version
svn, version 1.3.0 (r17949)
compiled Jan 4 2006, 12:42:53
and the server was either the
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I'm trying to get:
void foo() {
int rowfraclo[2];
rowfraclo[1] = 42;
asm ("movd mm6, %a0" : : "p" (rowfraclo+1));
}
With the below patch (still running the testsuite) I can get the
compiler to generate that code. So, the question is h
On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the idea of matrix linking is quite different
You could have saved all the space and just said, yeah, but mine can
rebind printf. My response would be, yes, so can we. So, I've yet
to see much of a difference.
On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:22 AM, Sapojnikova T.F. wrote:
Can I use c++ (g++) and fortran (g77) together in one
multilanguage application?
Wrong list, gcc-help is more appropriate, thanks.
On Feb 13, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Eric Fisher wrote:
Suppose I have only pc-relative branch instructions such as 'b offset'
and don't have pc-region branch instructions such as 'j target'. So
what the function call should be translated? Do I have to always use
two instructions such as 'la reg, fun
On Feb 13, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Eric Fisher wrote:
Thanks. I'm working to port gcc to our chip. I use mips-elf as the
start.
Most chips have this same issue, you can copy from ppc for example,
or arm, if your chip is more like it (hope not).
we don't have pc-region branch instructions such a
On Feb 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
I am assuming I am doing something wrong but I am hoping someone can
give me a clue as to where to look.
I'd fire up a debugger and type up a couple of times from a
breakpoint in the dtor. If you want to randomly try things, if you
inserted c
On Feb 17, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Serge Dundich wrote:
I need to define the constant memory address/offset in i386 gcc
inline asm,
i.e. immediate value without $ prefix, so I can use it as a
constant offset for
some memory address statement.
Is there any way to do that?
Sure, the manual descr
On Feb 21, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Amarnath wrote:
I am in need of the following version of Bison tool's installation
package available with CYGWIN.
We are not cygwin. You can go over to the cygwin site and install it
and it will let you grab and install this. Try google, if you can't
find the
On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Florian Radulescu wrote:
Please I would need some instructions on how to compile and install
gcc for Intel XScale.
You would need to use google to find the gcc documentation that
describes this in detail. If you do that, you should find http://
gcc.gnu.org/inst
601 - 700 of 1036 matches
Mail list logo
