Hi,
I'm now working on Graphite branch and need to know
the alias set information for each data_reference_p, which
would be an integer (or alias_set_type) stands for which
alias set it is in.
I tried to get the alias set information with get_alias_set (tree)
(I've no idea how this function works,
Hi,
Gcc internals is the bible to port any architecture to GCC. Study
and analyze the internals first.
Apart from internals , gcc-4.3.0/gcc/config/ , here you can find
various other architectures which give you a practical feel.
These links will be more helpful if you are novice.
Hi,
I am planning to port gcc 4.3.0 to a new architecture. Can you
please help me in doing it. Please send me details on porting, such as:
1. The files to be modified in the gcc source .
2. Steps to build gcc for the new architecture.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Rajeshwari
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kaz Kojima wrote:
Hi,
I hope DF/middle-end experts will comment about this.
PR target/40710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40710
is a wrong code problem on SH. A delayed slot of a conditional
branch insn is wrongly fill
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> OK, so isn't the bug obvious then? You said: "mark_target_live_regs
> uses df_get_live_in to get live regs for the basic block including the
> opposite_thread insn which is insn 32.". And you had insn 32 in basic
> block 3. So find_basic_block returns the wrong basic block
> I doubt he can help you with this one... When your problem concerns
> reorg, you should talk to people like Eric Botcazou or Richard
> Sandiford or HP Nillson. I've added Eric to the CC, to make this a
> happier crowd. :-)
Thank you. I was about to leave for vacation but I'll stay for this on
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> [I'd like to add kenny to the CC list.]
I doubt he can help you with this one... When your problem concerns
reorg, you should talk to people like Eric Botcazou or Richard
Sandiford or HP Nillson. I've added Eric to the CC, to make this a
happi
[I'd like to add kenny to the CC list.]
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> So when the CFG is still valid, r15 is live-out in basic block 2 and
> live-in in basic block 3 (which contains insns 32, whatever that means
> for an invalid CFG). For which bb does mark_target_live_regs call
> df_get_live_in?
gdb
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope DF/middle-end experts will comment about this.
>
> PR target/40710
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40710
>
> is a wrong code problem on SH. A delayed slot of a conditional
> branch insn is wrongly filled with an ins
Hi,
I hope DF/middle-end experts will comment about this.
PR target/40710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40710
is a wrong code problem on SH. A delayed slot of a conditional
branch insn is wrongly filled with an insn changing stack pointer
in the failing case. I've tried to see wh
Janboe Ye writes:
> Is it possible to override alloc to do the same thing as
> expand_buitlin_alloca in application codes?
I don't know of any way to do that when using mudflap. If there were
such a way, it would imply that mudflap were broken, or that there is a
special way to work around it.
Sorry to be coming back to this problem, I'm working on many projects
at the same time at the moment.
The port actually has a shift-immediate. It actually sees it later in
the fwprop pass:
In insn 14, replacing
(ashift:DI (reg:DI 79)
(reg:DI 77))
with (ashift:DI (reg:DI 79)
(con
Hi Ian
Thanks for reply.
Is it possible to override alloc to do the same thing as
expand_buitlin_alloca in application codes?
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 14:17 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Janboe Ye writes:
>
> > normally gcc will use expand_builtin_alloca to handle variable array.
> > But mud
Janboe Ye writes:
> normally gcc will use expand_builtin_alloca to handle variable array.
> But mudflap will force this function to return immediately to invoke
> alloca explicit.
>
> Is there some way to still use expand_builtin_alloca without changing
> gcc source code?
mudflap can't check acc
Hi,
normally gcc will use expand_builtin_alloca to handle variable array.
But mudflap will force this function to return immediately to invoke
alloca explicit.
Is there some way to still use expand_builtin_alloca without changing
gcc source code?
Thanks a lot!
Janboe Ye
On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 15:40 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Steve
> > Kargl wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:34:00PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> >>> I have been trying to run the gfortran testsuite for a whil
Hello all,
I am doing a port for a private target in GCC 4.4.0. It generates code
for both little & big endian.
The ABI for the target is as follows:
1. All arguments passed in stack are passed using their alignment constrains.
Solution: For this to happen no argument promotion should be done.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Hendershot, Travis
S wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to build a cross-compiler of gcc so that I can build an
> application for the Green Hills INTEGRITY RTOS. Has this been tested before
> on recent releases of gcc? Are there any binary files of the cross compi
Hello,
I am trying to build a cross-compiler of gcc so that I can build an application
for the Green Hills INTEGRITY RTOS. Has this been tested before on recent
releases of gcc? Are there any binary files of the cross compiler available
direct for download?
Assuming no, I have been trying t
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 06:42, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> Primary
>>
>> * i386-unknown-freebsd
>> * i686-pc-linux-gnu
>> * mipsisa64-elf
>> * powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
>> * sparc-sun-solaris2.10
>> * x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>
> your non-elf filter has been too agressive.
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 08:11 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 03:15, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> >> 4- Test on primary and secondary platforms. What is the current
> >>suggested list of platforms?
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Dave
Korn wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Jack Howarth
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:52:51AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> __complex__ long long f ()
> {
> int i[99];
> __complex__ long long v;
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:52:51AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
__complex__ long long f ()
{
int i[99];
__complex__ long long v;
v += f ();
>>> Undefined behaviour, no?
>>>
>>> ch
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:52:51AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Jack Howarth
>> > wrote:
>> >> I am seeing a new failure on x86_64-apple-darwin10 in current gcc 4.4
>> >> branch
>>
24 matches
Mail list logo
