Rask,
On Thursday 01 June 2006 16:13, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> I think you will need to remove the '+' as already suggested and add
> (clobber (match_scratch:QI "=X,X,X,1")) to tell GCC that the register
> allocated to operand 1 is clobbered by the instruction for this
> particular altern
- Original Message -
From: "DJ Delorie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Libiberty
>
> Please don't reply to me personally, use the mailing list.
Sorry I just pressed reply. You personal address must have been there.
Bill
> I haven't found anything in the docs that I see that explains
> the libiberty library.
You didn't find the libiberty documentation? It's separate from the
gcc documentation, but available on the gcc docs web page.
> Can this be compiled without having to compile a whole new compiler?
Er,
I haven't found anything in the docs that I see that explains the
libiberty library. Can this be compiled without having to compile a whole
new compiler? I am running 3.4.6 and what to cross compile for a pdp-11. I
just want to compile the extra support and that's all.
Bill
Remy Saissy wrote:
I've looked for a target specific callback to modify but I've found
nothing, even in the gcc internals info pages. Do you mean I would
have to modify some code outside of the i386 directory ? Or maybe to
add such a callback if it doesn't exist ;)
You'ld have to modify code i
Geoff,
When building xplor with -shared-libgcc -whyload, I don't see any
explicit symbols being loaded from libgcc_s. However from
libxplorCmd.dylib, which has code called from xplor, I see...
/usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib(unwind-dw2_s.o) loaded to resolve symbol:
__Unwind_Resume
/usr/lib/libgcc
Mark Shinwell wrote:
Option (i), which is in all but name the "solution 5" approach [1] proposed
last year, means that the "count == 0" case is elevated to the same level
of importance as the "count > 0" cases, in line with the use in
backtrace (). The problem with this is that on platforms wher
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Ron McCall wrote:
Does anyone happen to know if it is possible to link
(and run) C code compiled with a powerpc-eabi targeted
gcc with C code compiled with a powerpc-linux targeted
gcc?
This is a linker question, we don't do linkers here. In particular,
the reloc
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060601 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060601/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:43:09PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> In the eyes of at least some, especially the dates for the old
> releases in releases.html are of historical interest, so I'd be
> quite hesitant to remove these.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that it is easy to miss the statement on
>
On Sun, 14 May 2006, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> Dave Yost points out that a cursory look at the main table
> in:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
>
> (which is linked-to from the main page) gives the impression
> that 3.4.6 has been our last release. It is very easy to
> miss the fine-print-l
> > Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of
> > results:
> > PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, James Lemke wrote:
> Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of
> results:
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test
> Your approach is faster, esp. on Darwin / NetBSD.
> The only advantages I see to mine is handling variants (Richard's patch
> fixes that), verbosity control, and detail -- compare_tests only looks
> at X?(PASS|FAIL).
Hmm.. another small point, FWIW.
Both the results files I used contained the f
sean yang wrote on 06/01/06 15:28:
> Thanks. after reading expunge_block(), i am curious whether " 'for (i=0;
> i
That was my point: it doesn't, unless you can guarantee that the CFG has
been compacted.
Whoops... I forgot to attach my fixes, for anyone that's interested.
--
Jim Lemke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orillia, Ontario
--- dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/05/31 19:22:14 1.18
+++ dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/06/01 17:53:21
@@ -31,6 +31,16 @@ if test $# -ne 3 -o ! -f "$2" -o ! -f "$
exit 1
fi
+# Comman
> Please do. I'd welcome it (and scripts to generate html, to track
> known issues, to trim log files, to drive things and do on)... I
> think having a few different styles would be good, then people can
> try them all out and see which ones they like and why. Anyway, for
> me, it isn't
Thanks. after reading expunge_block(), i am curious whether " 'for (i=0;
i'compute_defs_uses_and_gen()' uses it, it should work; from the other hand,
from the code of expunge_block, BASIC_BLOCK[n_basic_blocks-1] may not be the
last element in the BASIC_BLOCK array.
For example,
BASIC_BLOCK is l
I guess I should have also mentioned that the
resultant program will be run under gdb, with a script
setting breakpoints, running, examining variables,
etc.
--- Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The call from Linux-land to eabi-land would not
> need
> > to pass arguments nor return anythi
On 6/1/06, sean yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding is that: both are used to traverse BBs and the only
(potential )difference is the order of the traversal. 'FOR_EACH_BB'
traverses BBs throught the linked list order; 'for (i=0; iindex ==i)
(Please correct me if my understanding is
sean yang wrote on 06/01/06 14:44:
> 'for (i=0; i the
> BB's index (because BASIC_BLOCK(i)->index ==i)
>
The first form may take you to a NULL basic block. See expunge_block.
> The call from Linux-land to eabi-land would not need
> to pass arguments nor return anything and nothing
> would need to be shared between the two pieces of
> code.
So basically you can replace the whole thing with sleep(1); and noone would be
any the wiser.
Paul
My understanding is that: both are used to traverse BBs and the only
(potential )difference is the order of the traversal. 'FOR_EACH_BB'
traverses BBs throught the linked list order; 'for (i=0; ii++){bb=BASIC_BLOCK(i);}' traverses accoring to the BB's index (because
BASIC_BLOCK(i)->index ==i)
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:58:31AM +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:37:51PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
>>> And I forgot to ask: who the heck is supposed to set USE_MINGW_MSYS?
>>> (grep is soo
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Mark Shinwell wrote:
As for the remaining problem, I suggest that we could:
(i) always return the hard frame pointer, and disable FP elimination in
the current function; or
(iii) ...the same as option (i), but allow targets to define another macro
that will cause the defau
Hi!
Does anyone happen to know if it is possible to link
(and run) C code compiled with a powerpc-eabi targeted
gcc with C code compiled with a powerpc-linux targeted
gcc? The resulting program would be run on a PowerPC
Linux system (ELDK 4.0).
In this case, main() would be compiled by
powerpc-l
Hi,
My attempts to build 4.1.1 on Solaris 8 and HP-UX 11 fail in
fastjar because it seems that the logic to deal with an out-of-date
makeinfo is borked.
We get
WARNING: `makeinfo' is missing on your system. You should only need it if
you modified a `.texi' or `.texinfo' file, or any ot
I can't explain myself what is going on within this lines in
the .debug_frame section.
Context: AMD64 linux64 system. (Ubuntu)
Within the debug_frame section I find the following assembly instructions:
.byte0x4
.long.LCFI0-.LFB2
The distance between labels LCFI0 and LFB2 is exactl
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The only problem I have with Mike's script is that it doesn't handle
runs with multiple multi-lib variants nicely.
Yeah, in the past, we drove the multilib pass from above as in
general we had to select different hardware for testing. I lik
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:49:35PM +0200, Wolfgang Mües wrote:
> > (define_insn "*arm_movqi_insn"
> > [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,r,r,Q")
> > (match_operand:QI 1 "general_operand" "rI,K,m,+r"))]
> > "TARGET_ARM
> >&& ( register_operand (operands[0], QImode)
>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
...
Not even a single comment - shame on you both! :-) If this is the
solution we choose, can we make sure that there's at least a comment
explaining what's going on?
Totally agree. That was an *example patch*. Here is a bit updated, but
still an example of how we
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> I get the following failure while building gcc 4.2 on hppa:
>
> checking for pid_t... no
> checking for library containing strerror... configure: error: Link tests are
> not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
> make[3]: *** [configure-target-libiberty] Error 1
> make[3]:
I get the following failure while building gcc 4.2 on hppa:
checking for pid_t... no
checking for library containing strerror... configure: error: Link tests are
not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
make[3]: *** [configure-target-libiberty] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/build/buildd/gcc-s
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
...
I am agree with this. Two months ago Maxim submitted patches which
affects only ia64 except one thing affecting all targets - the patch
which builds more scheduling regions and as consequence permits more
aggressive interblock scheduling.
Insn scheduling before
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 03:43, Mike Stump wrote:
> Mine was designed to do two things, figure out if the results are
> interesting and not send email, if they are not, and to show
> engineers the `interesting' detailed results in priority order. It's
> meant to be run daily, and on good days,
35 matches
Mail list logo
