On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Mark Tall wrote:
> 2009/5/28 Andrew Pinski:
>>
>> GCC see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24314 .
>>
>
> hmm.. known since 2005. Is there some difficulty in fixing this ?
>
More likely it's pretty rare so nobody has gotten itchy enough to
scratch tha
2009/5/28 Andrew Pinski:
>
> GCC see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24314 .
>
hmm.. known since 2005. Is there some difficulty in fixing this ?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Mark Tall wrote:
> [Sorry, I pasted the wrong compiler output (but for the same bug).
> Below is the corrected e-mail. ]
>
> I've come across a possible issue with GCC's adherence to the C++
> standard for handling template code (gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 from
> F
[Sorry, I pasted the wrong compiler output (but for the same bug).
Below is the corrected e-mail. ]
I've come across a possible issue with GCC's adherence to the C++
standard for handling template code (gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 from
Fedora 10).
The following code compiles fine under GCC (using
Hello,
I've come across a possible issue with GCC's adherence to the C++
standard for handling template code (gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 from
Fedora 10).
The following code compiles fine under GCC (using -pedantic and
-std=c++98), but fails under Microsoft's C++ 2008 SP1.
Microsoft explains this
> From: Georg-Johann Lay
> To: Jamie Prescott
> Cc: Eric Botcazou ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jim Wilson
> ; Ian Lance Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Seeking suggestion
>
> Jamie Prescott schrieb:
>
> >>> Thanks for the explanation. I somehow thought that every insn
Jamie Prescott schrieb:
Thanks for the explanation. I somehow thought that every insn spit out by a
define_insn was automatically turned into a parallel.
That's true, the template of a define_insn is automatically wrapped up in a
PARALLEL. But your addsi3 is a define_expand and this works di
> From: Eric Botcazou
> To: Jamie Prescott
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jim Wilson ; Georg-Johann Lay
> ; Ian Lance Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:37:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Seeking suggestion
>
> > Thanks for the explanation. I somehow thought that every insn spit out by a
> > define_insn
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> 2009/5/27 Basile STARYNKEVITCH :
>> Should we tell them (the other users using the future gcc-4.5-dev Debian
>> package) in our documentation how to build a plugin (I mean what are the
>> actual commands to run, what kind of Makefile for them, what are the
>> required
> Thanks for the explanation. I somehow thought that every insn spit out by a
> define_insn was automatically turned into a parallel.
That's true, the template of a define_insn is automatically wrapped up in a
PARALLEL. But your addsi3 is a define_expand and this works differently.
--
Eric Bot
> From: Jamie Prescott
> To: Jim Wilson
> Cc: Georg-Johann Lay ; Ian Lance Taylor ;
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Seeking suggestion
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I somehow thought that every insn spit out by a
> define_insn
> was automatically
> From: Jim Wilson
> To: Jamie Prescott
> Cc: Georg-Johann Lay ; Ian Lance Taylor ;
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:47:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Seeking suggestion
>
> Jamie Prescott wrote:
> > Is there a reason why something like this would not work?
> > if (!TARGET_XXX2)
> >
2009/5/27 Basile STARYNKEVITCH :
> Hello All,
>
> We now have plugins and they are somehow documented.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Plugins.html
>
> Perhaps we might document how to build a plugin? (Or should we not bother?)
In particular, in the wiki, it is better to err on the side of
Hello All,
We now have plugins and they are somehow documented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Plugins.html
Perhaps we might document how to build a plugin? (Or should we not bother?)
In particular, I am not entirely sure to understand plugin from a
"purely" user perspective, for insta
Mohamed Shafi writes:
> 2009/5/27 Ian Lance Taylor :
>> Mohamed Shafi writes:
>>
>>> Does GCC support architectures that has Variable Length Execution Set
>>> (VLES)?
>>> Are there any developments happening in this direction?
>>
>> gcc supports many instruction sets whose instructions are not
2009/5/27 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Mohamed Shafi writes:
>
>> Does GCC support architectures that has Variable Length Execution Set (VLES)?
>> Are there any developments happening in this direction?
>
> gcc supports many instruction sets whose instructions are not all the
> same size, including x86.
Mohamed Shafi writes:
> Does GCC support architectures that has Variable Length Execution Set (VLES)?
> Are there any developments happening in this direction?
gcc supports many instruction sets whose instructions are not all the
same size, including x86. In particular, gcc supports ia64, which
Hi all,
Does GCC support architectures that has Variable Length Execution Set (VLES)?
Are there any developments happening in this direction?
Regards,
Shafi
18 matches
Mail list logo
