> On Jun 9, 2015, at 7:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> Yes, but I'd expect them to be optimized away (well, hopefully).
>>
>> OK, but you cannot reasonably expose everything in GENERIC/GIMPLE, for
>> example
>> the mask-and-shift op
> On Jun 22, 2015, at 6:55 AM, JohnT wrote:
>
> I am wondering why it appears that GCC has started drastically raising its
> major version number for minor changes, instead of spending several years
> on version 3 and 4. 4.0.1, 4.1.1 and 4.12, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.5, up through
> 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4
What does the elf abi say about x18, I thought it was just another temp. If the
target does not use it as a platform reg. Note there are many assembly files
which might use x18 also due to that.
So this means you need wrapper functions when moving between the different
abis. Nothing much can
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:39 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
>
>> Am 07.07.2015 um 23:01 schrieb pins...@gmail.com:
>> What does the elf abi say about x18, I thought it was just another temp. If
>> the target does not use it as a platform reg. Note there are many assembly
>> files which might use
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/15 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> This isn't going to reliably work for ARM or AArch64. If the only call
>>> within a leaf function is via the A
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>>
>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Q
> On Aug 6, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Alan Lehotsky wrote:
>
> I have a funny situation where I’m trying to build a cross compiler for x86
> hosted on x86 where I’d like to use the native headers and libraries.
>
> I tried defining INCLUDE_DEFAULTS, and that didn’t help. The documentation
> say
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Peter Bergner :
>>> On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 16:35 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>>> Joseph Myers :
> irar = irar
Ira Rosen
>>>
>>> I pretty much knew these two guys went with these two names, but couldn't
>>> figure out
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
>
>> On August 26, 2015 8:28:40 PM CDT, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/26/2015 06:02 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 13:44 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Eric S. Raymond
>> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Sören Brinkmann
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I recently came across some bug in my program that I could narrow down
> to the snipped below (also attached with a Makefile).
>
> extern unsigned int _vector_table;
You need the attribute weak here if the location of _ve
> On Apr 29, 2014, at 12:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>
> Andrew wrote:
> > Does the patch series at located at:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01407.html
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01405.html
> > Fix this code generation issue? I suspect it does and improv
> On May 13, 2014, at 3:12 AM, niXman wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I use GCC to some restricted environment.
Can you share more information about this env. It might be a bug not in gcc.
> When I run gcc, it freezes up on this line[1]. When I replace the 'vfork()'
> on the 'fork()' the compilation
> On May 16, 2014, at 3:23 AM, Kugan wrote:
>
> I would like to know if there is anyway we can use registers from
> particular register class just as spill registers (in places where
> register allocator would normally spill to stack and nothing more), when
> it can be useful.
>
> In AArch64,
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Franzi Edo. wrote:
>>
>> As for the version 4.9.0, on OSX stil remain a problem.
>> I cannot build an ARM a cross compiler!
>> Here is the message (same as for the 4.9.0)
>>
>> ...
>> .../Packages/g
> On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:57 AM, "Bin.Cheng" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> For a simple example like below.
>
> int
> f1 (int p, short i, short n)
> {
> int sum = 0;
>
> do
>{
> sum += i;
> i++;
This here is the same as i = i + 1; which is really
i = (short)(((int)i) + 1);
So it gets conve
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> At the same time, we face the fact that going from 4.9 to 4.10 will
>> break some people's existing scripts, as is also true of any other
>> decision we can make.
>
> Looking forward to gcc 10.0. :-)
So a
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:10 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> - libstdc++ ABI changes (it is a significant user visible change,
>>> if you rebuild everything, no extra effor
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:45 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
>
>> On 13/08/14 18:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
>>> proliferate into the machine description, and
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.09.09 at 17:35 +0800, Arseny Solokha wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've recently faced an issue I'm afraid I currently unable to debug. When
>> building an arbitrary version of Linux kernel for powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
>> tar
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:24 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On November 7, 2014 5:03:19 AM CET, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:22 AM, Jonny Grant wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> When I checked out from the trunk I saw that various files had .C
> capital extension. Its not a big issue.. but I wondered if they should
> be .c like regular source files?
No because they are c++ code so capital C is correct.
> On May 5, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>
>> On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
>> is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
>
> Apart from the fact that classes are private by defaul
> On May 5, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Aditya K wrote:
>
> So, I analyzed other warnings and following is the list of relevant warning
> that I could collect. Hope this is useful.
>
>
> gcc/ipa-icf.c:508:12: warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand
> side of this comparison
> ../../gc
> On May 11, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Thiago Farina wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Clang 3.7 generated the following code:
>
> $ clang -S -O0 -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> add.c -o add_att_x64.s
>
> add:
> pushq %rbp
> movq%rsp, %rbp
> movl%edi, -4(%rb
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:01 PM, sculptor wrote:
> In poking about the guts of gcc I noticed that the RTX_FLAG volitil seems to
> be set for some strange reasons... For instance. it's set for registers that
> receive the value of a parameter register in addition to being set for
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
>
> Dear Group,
>
> The below asm is generated for target cortex-m3 (gcc-4.6.3)
>
> main:
>@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
>@ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
>push {r3, r4, r5, lr}
>bl vAlgTNoOptimize
>movs
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:58 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> Is there any particular reason that matmul* modules from libgfortran
> are compiled with -O2 -ftree-vectorize?
>
> I see some regressions on Atom processor after r202980
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-09/msg00846.html)
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:36 AM, Jean Lee wrote:
>
> My port of addresssanitizer is based on GCC 4.8.1.
> I modify "asan_emit_stack_protection" function in gcc/asan.c for the
> following reason:
> Sometimes, the stack variable size > 32 Bytes, and after asan
> generates code to poison the shadow b
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 2:58 AM, Jean Lee wrote:
>
> Addresssanitizer was added to GCC since GCC 4.8, and you should
> compile with the flag "-fsanitize=address". Moreover, the
> addresssanitizer support for MIPS is not implemented in offical GCC.
Yes I know that. I saying we back ported asan su
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:12 PM, "Steve Ellcey " wrote:
>
>
> I have run into a obscure corner case while building and was wondering if
> anyone can help me with it. I am doing a canadian cross build, building
> on x86 linux to create a GCC that runs on x86 windows and generates code
> for bare-
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
What benefits does blocks have over nested functions in C and over lambas in
C+
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I
>>> am looking at adding blocks sup
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:04 PM, "Paulo J. Matos" wrote:
>
> On 17/01/14 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> I am not implying that this is a GCC bug, unless you think
>>> WORD_REISTER_OPERATIONS should have avoided the creation of such
>>> paradoxical subreg.
>>
>> No, that's precisely the contrar
> On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> Wrong list, please send any follow-ups to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org only.
>
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Lars Hagström wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering whether GCC 4.9 will switch to -std=gnu++11 as default?
>
> No. This is asked regularly, google should
On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:59 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rsand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Sent: 27 January 2014 16:50
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Mode change for bswap pattern expansion
>>
>> Sorry, I meant we
> On Apr 16, 2014, at 12:42 AM, "Joey Ye" wrote:
>
> Ran into a fragile test case:
> FAIL: g+.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-union5.C -std=c+11 scan-assembler 7
>
> $ cat nsdmi-union5.C
> // PR c++/58701
> // { dg-require-effective-target c++11 }
> // { dg-final { scan-assembler "7" } }
>
> static union
> {
36 matches
Mail list logo
