Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hello, > > > This looks like a better approach. How would we do your step 1? We > > > have var_ann and tree_ann in addition to stmt_ann. Shall we put a > > > type field at the beginning of tree_statement_list_node+stmt_ann_d so > > > that an annotation node can identify itself? (Since all thes

Successful Build Report for GCC 4.0.0 C and C++

Hello! Here is a report of a successful build of GCC 4.0.0's C and C++ compilers on a RedHat 9 system. [Report starts here.] Basic information:- 'config.guess': i686-pc-linux-gnu 'gcc -v' (actual command was 'gcc-4 -v'): Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/

Re: Regression involving COMMON(?)

On Apr 26, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Paul Thomas wrote: Something did common in last night: I see testsuite failures on g77/960628_x.f (for x=0-10), common_4.f90 and g77/980701-1.f thus bumping unexpected failures up to 79. The common feature, if you will excuse the play on words, is common. I think th

Re: Fixing of bug 18877

Martin Koegler wrote: The fix is quite simple and was included in the bug report about 4 month ago. I raised also this issue on gcc-patches (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01390.html), but the problem still remains in the mainline cvs version. What can I do, to get the fix in the CVS

Ada and bad configury architecture.

Arno commented in a bug report: > Also, having the TOOLS_TARGET_PAIRS being now set in configure.ac is > more painful to maintain than having the list in Makefile.in, what about > reverting this change ? It would make life simpler when adding support > for a new target (no need to worry about reru

Re: gcc-4.0 non-local variable uses anonymous type warning

William S Fulton wrote: test.cxx:15: warning: non-local variable ‘:: ::Instance’ uses anonymous type Just grepping the sources for the warning, I find this comment /* [basic.link]: A name with no linkage (notably, the name of a class or enumeration declared in a local scope) shall n

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Zdenek, > > This looks like a better approach. How would we do your step 1? We > > have var_ann and tree_ann in addition to stmt_ann. Shall we put a > > type field at the beginning of tree_statement_list_node+stmt_ann_d so > > that an annotation node can identify itself? (Since all these tr

Re: object code execution statistics

Sergei Tovpeko wrote: Is there any util that would produce result containing the asm code execution staticstics ??? I assume you want assembly instruction execution counts. You could produce this info from gcov with a bit of work, as gcov already gives you execution counts for basic blocks. You

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 20:32, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Adnrew, > This looks like a better approach. How would we do your step 1? We > have var_ann and tree_ann in addition to stmt_ann. Shall we put a > type field at the beginning of tree_statement_list_node+stmt_ann_d so > that an annotation node

Re: tips on debugging a GCC 3.4.3 MIPS RTL optim problem?

Gary Funck wrote: (call_insn 84 66 141 (call_placeholder 77 67 0 0 (call_insn 83 82 0 (parallel [ call_placeholder is a special kind of RTL. It contains 3 instruction sequences for the 3 different possible kinds of calls: a normal call, a tail call, and a sibling call. These aren't printed in t

Re: gcc 4.0.0 optimization vs. id strings (RCS, SCCS, etc.)

Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Earlier versions of gcc retain static character strings in object > files which can be used for identification via ident (RCS) or what > (SCCS). Gcc 4.0.0 removes them above optimization level 1. The first observation I'd like to make is that we (the GCC

Re: c54x port

Bryan Richter wrote: Can someone assist me in getting the necessary copyright assignment forms? See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-06/msg02298.html for info on how to get the process started. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com

Re: gcc 4.0.0 optimization vs. id strings (RCS, SCCS, etc.)

On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote: Hi, Earlier versions of gcc retain static character strings in object files which can be used for identification via ident (RCS) or what (SCCS). Gcc 4.0.0 removes them above optimization level 1. Global strings are retained, of course, but that may l

Re: about how to write makefile.in config-lang.in for a frontend

zouq wrote: > i am now writing a frontend in gcc, but i don`t understand the rule > to write the makefile.in, config-lang.in There is a section in the docs that describe config-lang.in. Try looking at it. Also, try looking at the config-lang.in files for other language front ends. As for makefi

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hello, > > Then why not simply shorten this to: > > > > 1) put stmt annoation directly in the tree_statement_list_node > > > > 2) replace stmt_ann_t pointer in stmt with a pointer to its BSI, or the > > tree_statement_list_node. This makes bsi_from_stmt O(1) immediately. > > > > 3) all stmts n

Re: benchmark call malloc a lot?

Zhenyu Guo wrote: Any bechmarks which are dynamic storage alloca intensive? Or call malloc like func a lot? gcc makes a nice benchmark, and has lots of allocation calls. Otherwise, this doesn't seem to be a gcc question. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com

Re: gcc 4.0.0 optimization vs. id strings (RCS, SCCS, etc.)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Lilly wrote: > Hi, > > Earlier versions of gcc retain static character strings in object files > which can be used for identification via ident (RCS) or what (SCCS). > Gcc 4.0.0 removes them above optimization level 1. Global strings > are reta

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Adnrew, > > No, I would like to remove stmt_ann_t pointer from the stmt node, but > > not yet. All I want to do in this project is to put > > tree_statement_list_node and stmt_ann_d next to each other in memory > > while doing necessary adjustments in the compiler. Nothing more than > > that.

Re: spill_failure

Rajkishore Barik wrote: ./mul_mdmd_md.c:343: error: unable to find a register to spill in class âAD_REGSâ Compile with -da, look at the .greg dump file, it will have a bunch of messages saying "reloads for insn ...". Find the one for the insn that is failing. Look at the .lreg dump to find the

Re: Stack frame question on x86 code generation

Gang-Ryung Uh wrote: Could anyone help me understand what is the gcc strategy to prepare the stack frame? You didn't mention the gcc version, or the gcc target. Different gcc versions and targets will give different answers. Even different x86 targets work differently. printf("0x%x=return a

gcc 4.0.0 optimization vs. id strings (RCS, SCCS, etc.)

Hi, Earlier versions of gcc retain static character strings in object files which can be used for identification via ident (RCS) or what (SCCS). Gcc 4.0.0 removes them above optimization level 1. Global strings are retained, of course, but that may lead to namespace collisions. #ident doesn't wor

Re: emit_no_conflict_block breaks some conditional moves

Greg McGary wrote: That will do fine for ports that have conditional move, but without movsicc, you'll have this case: cmpsi ... bcc 1f movsi target, ... 1: cmpsi ... bcc 2f movsi target, ... 2: Thanks for the additional details. I had to remind myself what emit_n

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html

Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here is a unified diff for the proposed change (I think). > > Johan, Giovanni, I just noticed that this one apparently feel trough > the cracks? > > I had assumed that Giovanni would just go ahead an apply it since he's > an expert in that area and the

Re: gcc-4.0.0 build problem on solaris

Don Lindsay wrote: fatal: libiconv.so.2: open failed: No such file You have a copy of GNU iconv in /usr/local. This is apparently a common problem with Solaris. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01092.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01030.html give two possible solutions to

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 19:01, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Andrew, > No, I would like to remove stmt_ann_t pointer from the stmt node, but > not yet. All I want to do in this project is to put > tree_statement_list_node and stmt_ann_d next to each other in memory > while doing necessary adjustments in

Re: Unnesting of nested subreg expressions

Björn Haase wrote: misses therefore a lot of optimizations. I am presently trying to remove the define_insn for the HImode and SImode operations by implementing the lowering to QImode at expand or at least after reload (for those operations that leave the condition code in a useable state like a

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Andrew, > OK, let me word it a different way. What is create_stmt_ann (stmt) > going to do with the annotation it creates? You are moving the > stmt_ann_t pointer from the stmt node to the tree_statement_list_node... > so there will be nothing in the stmt node to attach the annotation to > lik

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 17:55, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > How is the get_stmt_ann (stmt) going to work from the caller of > > create_ssa_artificial_load_stmt() when it goes to look at the operands > > for its new "stmt"? > > I am going to replace that particular call to get_stmt_ann w

Re: Where did the include files go?

On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Øystein Johansen wrote: This may be a silly question, gcc-help is for silly questions... But why is the /gcc4.1/include/ directory empty? Why not? I expected to see that directory filled with *.h files and a sys/ directory. Ok, but why? It's not there? Right. Which fi

Where did the include files go?

This may be a silly question, but I just can't help my curiosity: I've done a cvs checkout on msys 1.0.10 and made a good/working build of GCC 4.1. gcc version 4.1.0 20050424 (experimental). I did configure with --prefix=/gcc4.1. I did a 'make bootstrap' and a 'make install' and everything seems

Re: Is there a way to specify profile data file directory?

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 01:32:03PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:47:50AM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > H. J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > > >Yes, that will work. Is anyone working on this? If not, we can take a > > >look. > > > > I have not heard anything back from the original

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Andrew, > How is the get_stmt_ann (stmt) going to work from the caller of > create_ssa_artificial_load_stmt() when it goes to look at the operands > for its new "stmt"? I am going to replace that particular call to get_stmt_ann with a call to create_stmt_ann. The beginning of create_ssa_ar

Re: Some small optimization issues with gcc 4.0 20050418

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James E Wilson wrote: > Sebastian Biallas wrote: > >> You don't need to reserve a stack slot for the return address on x86. >> The stack slot will be allocated implicitly by the "call" instruction. > > OK, then this must be a similar issue to the reg

Re: Is there a way to specify profile data file directory?

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:47:50AM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > H. J. Lu wrote: > > > > >Yes, that will work. Is anyone working on this? If not, we can take a > >look. > > I have not heard anything back from the original enquirer/volunteer over > a month ago. I suggest GCOV_PREFIX as the varia

Re: Some small optimization issues with gcc 4.0 20050418

Sebastian Biallas wrote: You don't need to reserve a stack slot for the return address on x86. The stack slot will be allocated implicitly by the "call" instruction. OK, then this must be a similar issue to the register saves in the prologue. There is confusion between calculating the frame size,

Re: The subreg question

Ling-hua Tseng wrote: (Does (high:SI ...) have the semantic of clearing LSB 16-bit ? ) Storing an SImode value into an SImode reg will set the entire register, unless you are using subreg/zero_extract/etc on the destination. So yes, this will clear the low order bits, where the number of

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Zdenek, > Once this is done, I would like to start working on moving gimple out of > trees to the "flat" structure. Very cool! I am glad you'll be working on this! Kazu Hirata

Side-effect latency in DFA scheduler

Hi, How is the latency of instructions that have side effects modeled in the DFA scheduler. For example, define_insn_reservation only has one latency value, yet instructions such as loads with post increment addressing have two outputs, possibly with different latencies. Do both outputs get the sa

Store scheduling with DFA scheduler

Hi, I'm trying to get the DFA scheduler in GCC 4.0.0 to schedule loads and stores, but I can only get it to work for loads. I have an automaton defined as follows: (define_automaton "cpu") (define_cpu_unit "x" "cpu") (define_cpu_unit "m" "cpu") (define_insn_reservation "arith" 1 (eq_attr "type"

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hello, > > o One step closer to a flat statement structure (or a tuple form if > > you like). It's a bit silly that we have GIMPLE, but we still do > > not have a flat structure. on a side note, I am currently working on cleaning up gimplification (mostly to enable embedding of simple and fa

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 14:37, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > well, there isnt a tree_statement_list_node right... DOM simply has an > > expression, and we end up calling create_stmt_ann. I guess you would > > have to create a completely detached stmt_list node for this case. what > > are y

Re: IA64 Pointer conversion question / convert code already wrong?

> Also, I think convert_memory_address ought to have a > gcc_assert (GET_MODE (x) == to_mode); > in the #ifndef case. Interesting, I put this assertion in my code and I now cannot bootstrap on HPPA. Looking at the HPPA builds (where POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED if not define

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Andrew, > well, there isnt a tree_statement_list_node right... DOM simply has an > expression, and we end up calling create_stmt_ann. I guess you would > have to create a completely detached stmt_list node for this case. what > are you planning to have create_stmt_ann do? I am thinking abou

Re: IA64 Pointer conversion question / convert code already wrong?

> Also, I think convert_memory_address ought to have a > gcc_assert (GET_MODE (x) == to_mode); > in the #ifndef case. Interesting, I put this assertion in my code and I now cannot bootstrap on HPPA. Looking at the HPPA builds (where POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED if not defined) I see the asserti

Re: Build of GCC 4.0.0 successful

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 02:36:38PM -0400, William Beebe wrote: > I've bootstrap built GCC 4.0.0 on Fedora Core 3. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: athlon-fedora-linux What is the output of config.guess?

Re: Propagating attributes for to structure elements (needed for different address spaces)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Martin Koegler wrote: > As I don't know DTR18037 and have no access to it (even Google finds nothing > useable about it), I > cannot say something about it. The current version is WG14 N1095 . It's the standard wa

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 12:00, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I believe DOM uses the routine to create a dummy expression for a store > > which looks like a load. This load is then entered into the equivalency > > tables such that the store of the expression also shows up as a load > > allowing

Re: Propagating attributes for to structure elements (needed for different address spaces)

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:22:31PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Martin Koegler wrote: > > > The solution would be to add also for the base type of an array the > > eeprom attribute. Additonally all elements of structures and unions must > > also have the eeprom attribute

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Andrew, > > I might need your help later as a loop optimizer expert. I just found > > yesterday that tree-ssa-loop-im.c:schedule_sm is using stmt_ann before > > a statement proper is linked to a basic block. Specifically, it > > creates a statement, attaches a stmt_ann, and puts it on edge.

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Andrew, > It will also involve figuring out what to do with DOM, which has some > hacks via a call to create_ssa_artficial_load_stmt() which causes a > non-stmt to have a stmt annotation and operands created for it. I've > been bugging Diego to replace the parts of DOM which use this so we can

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:32, Kazu Hirata wrote: > I might need your help later as a loop optimizer expert. I just found > yesterday that tree-ssa-loop-im.c:schedule_sm is using stmt_ann before > a statement proper is linked to a basic block. Specifically, it > creates a statement, attaches a stm

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hi Zdenek, > guessing from (*) below, you probably just forgot to mention that it also > involves changing SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT to point to the > tree_statement_list_node rather than the statement itself, > otherwise there is no way how to get the > annotation for SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (name)? I am not

Re: Proposal: GCC core changes for different address spaces

> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see a lot more address space than that in generic processors, not only > embedded systems with EEPROM. - Almost, but they aren't "memory spaces" in the sense that programming languages expect them to be, as they impose implied restrictive semantic

Re: Propagating attributes for to structure elements (needed for different address spaces)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Martin Koegler wrote: > The solution would be to add also for the base type of an array the > eeprom attribute. Additonally all elements of structures and unions must > also have the eeprom attribute added. The solution is to implement DTR18037 named address spaces. Natura

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Jeroen Scheerder writes: > Note that no other combination will even bootstrap. GNU ld stumbles > upon a Sun-supplied crt*.o file, and Sun's as chokes on the generated > assembly (x86_64 instructions it fails to handle?). There are several issues with the native as, discussed in http://g

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Daniel Jacobowitz: [...] > > Note that no other combination will even bootstrap. GNU ld stumbles > > upon a Sun-supplied crt*.o file, and Sun's as chokes on the generated > > assembly (x86_64 instructions it fails to handle?). > > GNU ld ought to work; what's the error look like? /usr/lib/amd6

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 04:48, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > Hello, > > > I am thinking about merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node. > > > > Background > > -- > > > > tree_statement_list_node is a linked list node defined like so > > > > struct tree_statement_list_node { > > struct t

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:05:32PM +0200, Jeroen Scheerder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz: > > [...] > > > > So obviously Sun ld doesn't have the necessary support for COMDAT groups > > > (even with GNU ld, a quite recent version seems to be required). > > > Unfortunately, gcc's configure.ac doesn't

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > So obviously Sun ld doesn't have the necessary support for COMDAT groups > > (even with GNU ld, a quite recent version seems to be required). > > Unfortunately, gcc's configure.ac doesn't check for this, but should. > > So you're using gas with the Sun linker? Yes,

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Daniel Jacobowitz: [...] > > So obviously Sun ld doesn't have the necessary support for COMDAT groups > > (even with GNU ld, a quite recent version seems to be required). > > Unfortunately, gcc's configure.ac doesn't check for this, but should. > > So you're using gas with the Sun linker? Yes,

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:28:18PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > If I compare stdexcept.s when building with /usr/sfw/bin/gas vs. gas > 2.15.96, I see differences like the following: > > .Ltext0: > .weak _ZTISt11logic_error > - .section.gnu.linkonce.r._ZTISt11logic_error,"a"

Propagating attributes for to structure elements (needed for different address spaces)

My current aproach, checking for the eeprom attribute in the GCC calculated types, is not sufficient in some situations: struct y1 { int x; }; struct x { struct y1 y; }; typedef struct x ax __attribute__ ((eeprom)); void test1(ax* x) { x->y.x=1; } In this case, while expanding x->y.x=1, the type o

tree-cleanup-branch is now closed

The only thing left in the branch is the reorganization of the pass pipeline, which is just a small patchlet. The branch is now closed. Diego. Index: cvs.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/cvs.html,v retrieving revision 1.1

Re: GCC 4.0 RC2 Available

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 01:18, Josh Conner wrote: > On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Julian Brown wrote: > > > Results for arm-none-elf, cross-compiled from i686-pc-linux-gnu > > (Debian) > > for C and C++ are here: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01301.html > > > > Relative to

Re: how small can gcc get?

> "PhilipG" == Philip George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What did you really mean? PhilipG> I need to install gcc into a disk image that will accompany PhilipG> a gui application i'm writing. PhilipG> ...the entire package (gui app + disk image with gcc) will be PhilipG> downloadable,

Re: RFC: ms bitfields of aligned basetypes

Danny Smith wrote: Jim Wilson wrote http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01172.html Joern RENNECKE wrote: required for Tal16bool. Should we enforce that any storage element allocated for a run of ms-bitfields get the full alignment of the basetype, even when it exceeds

RE: Register allocation in GCC 4

Hi Nathan, > I guess > it must be to do with function calling Good call. I screwed up the conversion from FUNCTION_ARG_PARTIAL_NREGS to TARGET_ARG_PARTIAL_BYTES. Cheers, Jon

Successful gcc4.0.0 build (Redhat 9. Kernel 2.4.25)

make bootstrap successful build info: config.guess states: i686-pc-linux-gnu gcc -v states: Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: /tmp/downloads/gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/apps/Linux/gcc400 --program-suffix=400 --with-local-prefix=/usr/include --enable-threads Thread

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Jeroen Scheerder writes: > > So obviously Sun ld doesn't have the necessary support for COMDAT groups > > (even with GNU ld, a quite recent version seems to be required). > > Unfortunately, gcc's configure.ac doesn't check for this, but should. > > Your analysis is very convincing. So an ugly wo

Re: Register allocation in GCC 4

Nathan Sidwell wrote: Jon Beniston wrote: Hi, I'm updating a GCC port to 4.0.0. I am seeing a problem whereby registers that are set to 1 in fixed_regs are being used. The problem is occuring quite early on in the compiler, as the registers appear in the 00.expand dump. The problem seems to occur f

Re: Register allocation in GCC 4

Jon Beniston wrote: Hi, I'm updating a GCC port to 4.0.0. I am seeing a problem whereby registers that are set to 1 in fixed_regs are being used. The problem is occuring quite early on in the compiler, as the registers appear in the 00.expand dump. The problem seems to occur for a DCmode value that

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Rainer Orth: > Jeroen Scheerder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Partial success only. I think I'll be able to build it without C++ > > support, but compilation per your instruction does choke on > > libstdc++.so.6.0.4. > > I've had the same problem and think I know what's going on. > > > ld

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Jeroen Scheerder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Partial success only. I think I'll be able to build it without C++ > support, but compilation per your instruction does choke on > libstdc++.so.6.0.4. I've had the same problem and think I know what's going on. > ld: fatal: relocation error: file:

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I recommend using GNU as and Sun ld. /usr/sfw/bin/as should be a suitable > version of the GNU assembler, or try the 2.15.97 binutils snapshot (from > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/binutils/snapshots/) for an assembler which should > also be sufficiently

Re: Proposal: GCC core changes for different address spaces

Paul Schlie wrote: > My impression is that there are 3 fundamental types of memory references: > > - literal-code (call/goto code-label/ptr) > - literal-data (mem static-const-symbol/ptr) > - runtime-data (mem non-static-const-symbol/ptr) > > As such it seems likely sufficient to simply enable the

Register allocation in GCC 4

Hi, I'm updating a GCC port to 4.0.0. I am seeing a problem whereby registers that are set to 1 in fixed_regs are being used. The problem is occuring quite early on in the compiler, as the registers appear in the 00.expand dump. The problem seems to occur for a DCmode value that is being allocated

Submission Status: CRX port ?

Hi, two weeks ago i've posted a new port to gcc-patches and it seems that no global maintainer took a look at it so far. Maybe now that the 4.0 is released there is someone who can take a look at it :) I think i did a clean port that utilizes most of the latest machine descripion standards (md-ma

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Monday 25 April 2005 10:48, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > > the CFG inliner will hit bsi_for_stmt hard. > > This is just because CFG inliner is badly written; Honza has already > fixed that in his private tree. The CFG inliner is badly written, sure, but the problem is before that. It's finding the

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

Hello, > I am thinking about merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node. > > Background > -- > > tree_statement_list_node is a linked list node defined like so > > struct tree_statement_list_node { > struct tree_statement_list_node *prev; > struct tree_statement_list_node *next

Re: Is there a way to specify profile data file directory?

H. J. Lu wrote: Yes, that will work. Is anyone working on this? If not, we can take a look. I have not heard anything back from the original enquirer/volunteer over a month ago. I suggest GCOV_PREFIX as the variable name and simply concatenate it to the absolute paths in the object file. I'm not