Re: larger default page sizes...

On 2008/3/26, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> i wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:22:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > There are ways to get large pages into the process address space for > > > > compute bound tasks, without suf

Re: Draft SH uClinux FDPIC ABI

Following comments on these lists and from Renesas, the revised ABI we will be implementing is now available. (Further changes may be made for issues found in the course of implementation.) http://www.codesourcery.com/public/docs/sh-fdpic/sh-fdpic-abi.txt -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [trunk] Addition to subreg section of rtl.text.

Kenneth Zadeck wrote: Richard Sandiford wrote: Hi Joern, Thanks for the answer, Joern Rennecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thanks very much for replying to this. We were starting to get worried that no one was going to reply and we would be left out in the cold. Some of us might be on va

Re: MAINTAINERS update (was: [wwwdocs] java/projects.html -- remove broken link)

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > I'm wondering how many other entries in our MAINTAINERS file are affected. > Perhaps we ought to send a test message to all and see what comes back? > Thoughts? If we update bouncing MAINTAINERS addresses, we should also update the gcc-maintainers mai

Re: ABI64 and register save area

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Matteo Emanuele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I that hope this is the right place for this kind of > questions! > However my question is rather simple: knowing the > AMD64 ABI, is it possible to implement your own > flavour of the va_xxx macros? > If I c

valgrind "uninitialized value" for __cxa_begin_catch? (Only if -static)

Hi, I have noticed that, when I link my code statically, valgrind complains about every exception that is caught. In the example code below, the error is: ==32195== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==32195==at 0x44B8A4: __cxa_begin_catch (in /home/bredelings/Dev

Re: XDELETEVEC

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Alexey Salmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello! I'm learning my way around the gcc lexer/cpplib code and I have > a question about the way it works with memory buffers. It seems that > arrays are allocated with XNEWVEC macro - generally a good idea of > course.

Re: subreg question

> How to tell gcc to insert high, low, and combine operations, when 32 > and 64 bit operations are exchanging values? CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS Paul

subreg question

Hi, My target architecture has 32 bit registers and uses register pairs for 64 bit values. What makes it special is that whenever a register pair is written by a 64 bit operation, the individual registers should not be read by 32 bit operations. The reverse is also true: whenever a register pair i

XDELETEVEC

Hello! I'm learning my way around the gcc lexer/cpplib code and I have a question about the way it works with memory buffers. It seems that arrays are allocated with XNEWVEC macro - generally a good idea of course. So I expected to see memory freed with the corresponding macro XDELETEVEC and was su

ABI64 and register save area

Hi, I that hope this is the right place for this kind of questions! However my question is rather simple: knowing the AMD64 ABI, is it possible to implement your own flavour of the va_xxx macros? If I compile _without_ -fomit-frame-pointer I'm able to retrieve the arguments pushed on the stack, bu