Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Li Feng wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> On 7/16/09, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tobias
>>> Grosser wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 22:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> At the risk of being naive: implement it. I'm not quite sure what
> you're looking for here?
Ok, time to ask for a hint. I started at get_best_mode(), adding a
TREE argument for the type, and worked my way out, adding arguments to
functions as needed to propogate the type information. It's g
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20090716 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20090716/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> 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?
I don't think
Hi,
I fixed 2 local IFUNC symbol bugs.
H.J.
---
This is the beta release of binutils 2.19.51.0.12 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2009 0716 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can
Hi --
I've tracked down a failure in gdb to hit a breakpoint
set at printf to the the breakpoint being placed incorrectly.
Here is the code generated for printf with -mhard-float:
.loc 1 29 0
.cfi_startproc
.LVL0:
mflr 0
stwu 1,-112(1)
.LCFI0:
.cfi_def_cf
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
> >> -static option? and 3) Is there a way to fix them? I've even gone so
> >> far as to manually run collect2 specifying my own hand edited command
> >> line, but nothing I've tried there has worked either.
>
Andrew Haley writes:
>> [...] It makes heavy use of
>> C++, STL, and boost and we'd like to (if possible) link *everything*
>> statically. This means libc, libgcc, libstdc++, boost, libpthread,
>> etc.
> [...]
> However, I really implore you: by all means link statically to everything
> else, bu
Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> -static option? and 3) Is there a way to fix them? I've even gone so
>> far as to manually run collect2 specifying my own hand edited command
>> line, but nothing I've tried there has worked either.
>
> Don't link statically, there are many reasons not to and only very
Eric Fisher writes:
> I read the paper "The Visual Development of GCC Plug-ins with GDE"
> from gcc summit 2009. It's a powerful tool. So where can I get it to
> help me debug and study gcc?
I think the best way to start would be to contact the authors of the
paper. Their e-mail addresses are t
On 07/11/2009 05:59 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01404.html
Do you have test cases for this?
Changing can_throw_internal/external to depend on whether or not future
inlining is possible looks *very* wrong to me. Surely the only thing
that matters for
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> So if i understand you right, it seems all you've done is inverted the
> existing alias/points-to sets.
> IE instead of saying A has B, C, D in it's alias set, you are saying B
> is in the alias set of A, C is in the alias set of A, D is in the
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Li Feng wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> On 7/16/09, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tobias
>> Grosser wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 22:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Richard
Guenther wrote:
>
On 07/16/2009 01:47 AM, Makoto Fujiwara wrote:
Could anyone suggest me which part of the src is taking care
of above save/restore processing ?
calls.c
function.c -> expand_function_{start,end}()
caller-save.c -> save_call_clobbered_regs()
reload1.c
or others ?
I believe it shou
Richard Henderson wrote:
On 07/15/2009 05:27 PM, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
LEB0 and LEB1 are duplicated in the attached ivms assembly file from
libgcc2. Note the first occurrence of each is at the prologue end, which
makes no sense to me.
FYI: I'm emitting the LPE labels at NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG a
On 07/15/2009 05:27 PM, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
LEB0 and LEB1 are duplicated in the attached ivms assembly file from
libgcc2. Note the first occurrence of each is at the prologue end, which
makes no sense to me.
FYI: I'm emitting the LPE labels at NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG and the LEB
labels at NOTE_
However, I really implore you: by all means link statically to
everything else, but leave libc dynamically linked. I'm not aware
of any reason not to link libc dynamically, and not doing so leads
to a ton of problems.
Problems also arise if one uses functions that use NSS (eg. getXbyY
> In general I think spinning off modules/passes that are not used very
> frequently (e.g. the tree browser) is a good idea since it reduces the
> size of our code base.
I would go a bit further.
One nice properties of plugins is that they have a more restrictive
API. That should help us to get
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Li Feng wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> On 7/16/09, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tobias
>> Grosser wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 22:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Richard
Guenther wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 7/16/09, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tobias
> Grosser wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 22:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Richard
>>> Guenther wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Tobias
>>> > Grosser wro
My name is Makoto Fujiwara, I am working a particular port
for private CPU (at the time being). The porting itself is
getting very well, I believe, say having more than 30,000 PASS
with testsuite. Although no execution available for that make check,
I am preparing gdb/sim based execution verifica
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tobias
Grosser wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 22:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Richard
>> Guenther wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Tobias
>> > Grosser wrote:
>> >>> A note on Lis final graph algorithm. I don't u
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 09:37:32PM -0500, Zachary Turner wrote:
> So I guess I have three questions. 1) Is this actually a problem or
> are these errors spurious? 2) Why do they disappear when I delete the
They are likely spurious. You get tons of valgrind warnings with dynamically
linked ld.so
Hi,
I read the paper "The Visual Development of GCC Plug-ins with GDE"
from gcc summit 2009. It's a powerful tool. So where can I get it to
help me debug and study gcc?
Thanks a lot.
Eric
Zachary Turner wrote:
> Hello, I've been trying to write a program that links to static
> libraries, and I've been having a lot of difficulties. Was wondering
> if someone can help me identify what's going wrong.
>
> The codebase is large, but is new to linux. It was originally
> developed on wi
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> As we can see, all three are using the symbol_ref data before adding
> their offset. But after cse, we get this:
>
> (insn 5 2 6 2 ex1b.c:8 (set (reg/f:DI 74)
> (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("data") )
> (const_int 8 [0x8] 71 {movdi_
26 matches
Mail list logo
