-
Back to look YOUNGER again with your real Hair
http://www.hairinesscenter.com
* hair loss reduce
* gray hair reduce
* dandruff reduce
and more
http://www.hairinesscenter.com/en
-
Back to look YOUNGER again with your real Hair
http://www.hairinesscenter.com
* hair loss reduce
* gray hair reduce
* dandruff reduce
and more
http://www.hairinesscenter.com/en
I have two (maybe dummy) question here:
1) For C programs, gimplification is done in gimplify_function_tree(), which
is called (through several caller layers) from toplev_main().
Can someone explain how gimplification is done for C++?
Maybe another way to ask it is: I understand cc1 is generate
On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
Theres an interesting discussion going on as to whether Microchip
Inc is allowed by the GPL
Wrong list. gnu.misc.discuss is the right list.
FWIW we did get really great code generation for the IP2k in the end
although it took some rather unpleasant machine-dependent-reorg stuff to
work around the fact almost every instruction used a singe 8-bit
accumulator registerr :-)
Other ports to look at would be the AVR (8-bit RISC with 32 regis
On 05 April 2006 16:41, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060405 16:19]:
>> However if Microchip have written their own entirely new linker scripts,
>> they hold the copyright and may license them however they please.
>
> Unless they are used to compile the derivative o
I participated in a port to an 8-bit internet toaster 4 years ago (the Ubicom
IP2k chip).
It's distributed as part of the gcc-3.x releases, but has been dropped from the
gcc-4.x distributions.
The IP2k was a very restrictive environment, and it took a lot of work to get
it to generate really t
Hi,
Until now i have only build cross toolchains for linux systems.
Usually i build crossgcc in 2 parts, one is before glibc is built ,
the other is after glibc is built.
Is there any way where i can skip the step glibc and build the whole
gcc compiler.
If yes how do i build the whole gcc with
Yes, I have the source code of this backend. It's based on gcc-3.3.
You can find an URL to download the source code on the GCC mailing, else
I can put it on a FTP server.
PoluX
* Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060405 16:19]:
> However if Microchip have written their own entirely new linker scripts,
> they hold the copyright and may license them however they please.
Unless they are used to compile the derivative of gcc. If they are they are
most likely "scripts used to
On 05 April 2006 13:57, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
Addressing specifically the questions in that post you linked to:
>
> http://www.linuxhacker.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/1
>
It is a clear case of "mere aggregation". Putting two things into a zip
file or tarball together does not suddenly turn
On 05 April 2006 13:57, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
> Theres an interesting discussion going on as to whether Microchip Inc is
> allowed by the GPL to licence linker scripts and some other scripts (their
> code, not based on a GPL'ed code) when these scripts are all distributed as
> part of the MPLAB
Hi,
Can somebody please explain to me is it reasonable and possible to port gcc
(version 4.xx) to 8 bit cpu architecture.
I would appreciate precise explanation why it is possible or not.
CPU is V8-uRISC.
V8-uRISC Features are:
8-bit ALU
64K byte addressing capability
Accumulator (R0)
Se
Theres an interesting discussion going on as to whether Microchip Inc is
allowed by the GPL to licence linker scripts and some other scripts (their
code, not based on a GPL'ed code) when these scripts are all distributed as
part of the MPLAB C30, which is a C compiler, based on the GNU CC (gcc)
On 4/5/06, Devendra Mulakkayala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. I know that these bit fields are compiler dependent. Is there any option
> in GCC to set the bit fields from top to bottom ( MSB to LSB )
> in structure.
> 3. As per the client requirement we are not supposed to change the code. I
> am
Hello,
ISSUE: Facing problem with bit fields, when i am compiling my code with
GCC. It was previously compiled with diab compiler and was working fine.
In our code Union definition is as follows...,
union
{
unsigned_8 indicator;
struct
{
unsigned_8 unused : 6;
unsigned_8 speed :1;
unsigned_8
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > || (TREE_CODE (type) == INTEGER_TYPE
> > && (TREE_CODE (arg1) == INTEGER_CST
> > || TYPE_UNSIGNED (type)
> > || (flag_wrapv && !flag_trapv)))
It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
portability errors that could be caught - but it's never been important
enough t
18 matches
Mail list logo
