Hello all,
For a port that i am working on has this particular addressing mode
load Rd, Ra[offset]
store Rs, Ra[offset]
For the above two instructions base register Ra should be an even
register. This i have implemented using the macros REGNO_OK_FOR_BASE_P
and BASE_REG_CLASS by creating a class
Hello, here's my application. Please, leave your comments as I still
have two days to fix it if something is wrong :)
Project
I want to make some improvements in the Lexer/cpplib area:
1) Change the way of file handling
-- Mmap file into memory if possible instead of allocating a buffer
(if no c
E-gold founder, Douglas Jackson, 51, of Sheridan, Mont., was 4 times shot
and killed Friday night on the Seventh Street ramp at East Seventh Avenue by
off-duty County Deputy Daniel Montana Jr.,
police said.
A spokesman for the Jackson's family told Fox 31 that the autopsy
details show the shots c
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Denys Vlasenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case I used it as an example why expecting gcc
> (and probably any other compiler) to generate
> ideantical assembly from same source on different OS
> is unrealistic.
You can generate identical assembly from
On Saturday 29 March 2008 01:46, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Denys Vlasenko
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > See:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29950
>
> And I can tell you now that bug is on purpose and really not a bug.
> We base stuff on the d
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Denys Vlasenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29950
And I can tell you now that bug is on purpose and really not a bug.
We base stuff on the decl uid and not memory address so we try for the
same code on differen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:56:52PM -0700, Alexandra (Sasha) Fedorova wrote:
> I was wondering anyone knows any details of the gcc port for Solaris/x86.
> I am wondering, if I have an executable compiled with gcc for Linux and an
> executable compiled with the same gcc (same version, same options)
On Saturday 29 March 2008 00:56, Alexandra (Sasha) Fedorova wrote:
> I was wondering anyone knows any details of the gcc port for Solaris/x86.
> I am wondering, if I have an executable compiled with gcc for Linux and an
> executable compiled with the same gcc (same version, same options) for
> S
I was wondering anyone knows any details of the gcc port for Solaris/x86.
I am wondering, if I have an executable compiled with gcc for Linux and an
executable compiled with the same gcc (same version, same options) for
Solaris, how similar would those executables be? I understand that the
code
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080328 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080328/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 12:45 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:56 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > > Is there a replacement for it?
> >
> > You can configure manually a self made run-time by setting flags
> > (e.g. Configurable_Run_Time and Suppress_Standard_Library) in system
Still waiting on this...
-benjamin
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello H.J.,
>
> * H.J. Lu wrote on Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:14PM CET:
>
> >
> > I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined
> > gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on
> > L
Hello H.J.,
* H.J. Lu wrote on Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:14PM CET:
>
> I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined
> gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on
> Linux/ia32 and Linux/Intel64 with shared library enabled, it went
> to infinit loop when as or
Hi,
I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined
gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on
Linux/ia32 and Linux/Intel64 with shared library enabled, it went
to infinit loop when as or ld from stage 2 was used. The problem is
ld-new tries to use itself to reli
Done. Fix commited to 133690. I am using the gcc 4.0.3 configure for
i486-linux-gnu.
-Doug
2008/3/28 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 13:30, Doug Kwan (關振德) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I got a new breakage after updating to rev 133687 5 minutes ago. :-(
>
> Yeah,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 13:30, Doug Kwan (關振紱) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got a new breakage after updating to rev 133687 5 minutes ago. :-(
Yeah, you're probably using a different host GCC than I am.
Unfortunately, we'll have to live with this until bootstrap starts
working. Adding an initia
I got a new breakage after updating to rev 133687 5 minutes ago. :-(
gcc -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Werror -Wno-return-type -fno-common
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc/gcc -I../../
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:32, Rafael Espindola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3341: warning: 'v_main' is used
> > uninitialized in this function
> > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3342: warni
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:32, Rafael Espindola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3341: warning: 'v_main' is used
> uninitialized in this function
> ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3342: warning: 'v_back' is used
> uninitialized in this function
Yes. That was probably caus
Hello,
This testcase seems to be broken, because it will fail everytime for the
static variable x. gcc detects, that this static variable has no reference
and will produce a warning.
Is this done by intention, or is it a failure in testcase to set variable
'static'?
Cheers,
i.A. Kai Tietz
|
> Grrr. I hope it wasn't me. I didn't enable any new code paths that
> weren't already gcc_unreachable(). Besides, my tests returned a couple
> hundred less failures. If for some reason it was me, we can disable
> execute_{expand,lower}_omp again.
Looks like 133658 broke the build:
../../
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Folks, I need to freeze the branch for a few hours. The overnight
> tester returned many new failures that I need to analyze. Please
> refrain from checking in anything until I unfreeze the branch.
Grrr. I hope it wasn't me. I di
Folks, I need to freeze the branch for a few hours. The overnight
tester returned many new failures that I need to analyze. Please
refrain from checking in anything until I unfreeze the branch.
Diego.
Hello All, Steering Committee,
Can someone please review the patch and suggest if this OK for 4.3 branch?
Regards,
Pompa
Pompapathi V Gadad wrote:
Hello All,
Refer: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00306.html
I had submitted a patch to undeprecate CRX port in 4.3 branch. The
port i
25 matches
Mail list logo
