Snapshot gcc-4.1-20060407 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20060407/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hello,
We are a strong and growing company working in some very advanced DSP
silicon. I am not a headhunter. We are interested in people who have
significant experience in modifying compilers. This role is ideal for
someone who has good experience with GCC and GNU tools, but could work
for someon
gcc really, really ought to specify more precisely what floating point
semantics one can depend on.
Bug 323, paraphrased, says "floating point comparisons return random
numbers". Ok, that's pumping it a bit, but consider the following
qsort comparison function right out of K&R 2nd Edition page 1
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 01:43, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> > 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> > to the mangler without an va_end().
> > This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> > fr
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:03:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just realized that the installation of libgcc_s.so.1 in "make install"
> is done like this
> (builfing gcc-4.0.3 on Solaris 8 / Sparc):
>
> /bin/sh ../../gcc-4.0.3/gcc/../mkinstalldirs /tmp2/gcc_4.0/lib/sparcv9;
> ginstall -c -
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 03:52:06PM +0200, Sylvain Pion wrote:
> My question now is related to the capacity of the compilers in general,
> and GCC in particular, to optimize away some of useless rounding mode
> function calls.
In principal it's not a complex task, though we've nothing to
support it
> > Now, the question is: should `get_base_var' be extended to handle
> > CONSTRUCTOR nodes or is ADDR_EXPR of a CONSTRUCTOR forbidden from
> > getting there?
>
> The latter. See PR c++/23171 and PR ada/22533.
>
Thanks. I have put addresable constructors in temporaries and the
problem went away
On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:52 PM, Ching-Hua Chang wrote:
Is there a flag in gcc that indicate that we are in the inline
assembly ?
inside_cw_asm_block, but only the APPLE branch has a notion of being
`inside'.
I suspect you'll need to use a paragraph to ask your question for us
to be able to
It seems that currently the only way to building gcc is with version > 4
using the solaris linker as per:
i?86-*-solaris2.10
Use this for Solaris 10 or later on x86 and x86-64 systems. This
configuration is supported by GCC 4.0 and later versions only.
It is recommended that you configu
> (And who are all of the people in the CC list? Is there some other
> list discussing this?)
We were randomly CC'd in the initial spew of emails, although I
personally am already on the gcc list, so CC'ing me on this only
serves to mess up my procmail filters. I've asked privately to be
remove
Hello!
There are many failures in libstdc++ testsuite:
Running
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp
...
FAIL: 17_intro/header_cassert.cc (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 17_intro/header_cerrno.cc (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 17_intro/header_csetjmp.cc (
I will probably start working on a 18F back-end if no definite plans for
implementing a complete port materialize 'soon.' (that is, if no-one else
seems likely to produce anything within the next few months)
Well I suppose these things need to start from individuals grouping
together.. I'm hap
Dear Richard and GCC list,
I am working on a proposal to standardize interval arithmetic in C++.
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1843.pdf)
In order to implement it efficiently, one typically needs to use the
FPU rounding modes (e.g. using fegetround and fesetround from
Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
Have you checked out SDCC? This may support the specific devices you're
interested in. For my part, I'm more interested in a GCC port than SDCC
though, as I feel there is an awful lot more to be gained from a gcc
port in the longer term.
As near as I can tell, the s
See also the recent mails on "Re: GCC port for V8-uRISC (8 bit CPU)", which
I'm not really familiar with yet, but which could be very relevant.
Colm
Aaron,
I'm currently working on this, for one. I'm in the very early stages of
development.
I'm currently using the following GCC ports (backends) for references
purposes: AVR, m68hc11/12. My code is currently based on GCC 3.3, but I'll
migrate to mainline as soon as I have any changes out
I just realized that the installation of libgcc_s.so.1 in "make install"
is done like this
(builfing gcc-4.0.3 on Solaris 8 / Sparc):
/bin/sh ../../gcc-4.0.3/gcc/../mkinstalldirs /tmp2/gcc_4.0/lib/sparcv9;
ginstall -c -m 644 sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1
/tmp2/gcc_4.0/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1; rm -f
/tmp
"Ching-Hua Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it is possible to restrict the addressing mode
> of inline assembly?
Use an appropriate constraint.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerp
I have also recently become interested in a GCC port for the 18F.
Can someone summarize who--if anyone--is working on this, how much
progress he has made so far (Is his work based on mainline?), and any
expected future milestones?
(And who are all of the people in the CC list? Is there some
19 matches
Mail list logo