Hi,
I have a problem with 4.1 on m68k-linux, which miscompiles the following
test case during the gcse pass:
struct b {
unsigned a : 1;
unsigned b : 1;
unsigned c : 1;
unsigned d : 1;
};
unsigned int x = 1;
void f(int y, struct b *p)
{
switch (y)
There are occasions where gcc wants to read some subreg of an address
in the GOT (builtin_strlen is one example, depending on optimization).
However, this code in s390.c (s390_decompose_address()) seems to disallow
such constructs:
/* In the small-PIC case, the linker converts @GOT
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20060811 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20060811/
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
>
> Mark,
>
> I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type
> consistency at the gimple level. They told me that Andrew was in the
> process of making gimple properly type consistent.
The last patch I wrote for this is located at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg0
David Edelsohn wrote:
> Some historical discussions as a refresher:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-02/msg00324.html
I honestly don't have the doc anymore, but i did send it to some people
before i stopped working on it.
I had guessed that nobody would really care enough to review the p
Some historical discussions as a refresher:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-02/msg00324.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-09/msg01562.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-12/msg01264.html
David
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > On 8/11/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Mark,
>> >>
>> >> I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type
>> >> consistency at the gimple level. They
On 8/11/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type
>> consistency at the gimple level. They told me that Andrew was in the
>> process
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type
>> consistency at the gimple level. They told me that Andrew was in the
>> process of making gimple properly type consistent.
>>
>> I just
On 8/11/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark,
I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type
consistency at the gimple level. They told me that Andrew was in the
process of making gimple properly type consistent.
I just wanted to point out how this effects encodi
Mark,
I have had some discussions with Honza and Diego about the type
consistency at the gimple level. They told me that Andrew was in the
process of making gimple properly type consistent.
I just wanted to point out how this effects encoding gimple into dwarf.
If the gimple is type consistent,
Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Those are the 4 actions/projects we left the summit with that I am aware
of. With any luck at all, one or more of these will have a significant
impact on our register allocator. Often projects like these proceed in
virtual silence until they are mostly done. Perhaps I'll
Sorry Im late getting to this, but July was simply insane...
There was a couple of discussions about register allocation at the GCC
summit, including a dinner hosted by IBM and a BOF afterward. There may
have been more activity after that, but I wasn't around so I don't know
about it :-). Som
In order to build gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20 I had to install GNU awk
and also configure with --disable-threads. The vendor's awk did not
build the options.h file correctly; the exact symptom was duplicated
OPT_d and OPT_w symbols in the enum. Then, the build blew up when it
tried to use pthreads (
Andrew Pinski writes:
>
> On Jul 28, 2006, at 4:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >
> > The memory requirement for PR12245 will nearly double.
>
> Saying it will double is not prove, please provide the memory usage
> dumps. If it does double then you should not be using x86 to optimize
> the m
Dear gcc-developers,
I downloaded, compiled and installed Your experimental
snapshot compiler gcc4.2-20060805 with some minor
troubles on my dual processor Athlon64 computer with Debian-linux (kernel
2.6.15, smp)
I wanted to use this compiler because it supports openmp.
To test the performance I u
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The simplest way is going to be something like
> >fprintf (asm_out_file, "\tnop\n");
>
> I added fprintf (asm_out_file, "\tnop\n"); to the end of case
> CODE_LABEL. Then I recompile the gcc. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
> that a NOP was inserted. Any
The simplest way is going to be something like
fprintf (asm_out_file, "\tnop\n");
I added fprintf (asm_out_file, "\tnop\n"); to the end of case
CODE_LABEL. Then I recompile the gcc. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
that a NOP was inserted. Any ideaes?
case CODE_LABEL:
/* The target
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which function should I use in order to emit a nop?
The simplest way is going to be something like
fprintf (asm_out_file, "\tnop\n");
Ian
19 matches
Mail list logo
