Hello Benjamin,
sorry for the delay, I've been traveling.
* Benjamin Kosnik wrote on Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:17:46PM CEST:
>
> Hey Ralf! Saw your message about updating gcc/src to current auto
> tools, in favor. But, it looks like the autoconf 2.64 release is not
> out, last I see is 2.63b at th
i...@adari.net writes:
> 1. It is wise then to insure that the final value of an expression is
> ascertained upfront before it is being used in a function call as an
> argument. I suppose this is applicable in all cases of expressions
> and not limited to pre and post increments, although, pre an
1. It is wise then to insure that the final value of an expression is
ascertained upfront before it is being used in a function call as an
argument. I suppose this is applicable in all cases of expressions
and not limited to pre and post increments, although, pre and post
is where there is likely
Hi there. The port that I'm working on has pointer registers backed
by a cache. It's unusual as the cache changes immediately when the
pointer register is modified instead of later when it is deferenced.
This means that it is cheaper to copy a base address into the pointer
register, then add the
2009/7/21 Shobaki, Ghassan :
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to run a single test from the GCC test suite under
> gcc/testsuite?
> I could not find the answer in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html and the google searches I tried did
> not yield anything useful.
It is written in that page, although it
Hi,
Is there a way to run a single test from the GCC test suite under
gcc/testsuite?
I could not find the answer in
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html and the google searches I tried did
not yield anything useful.
More specifically, if I want to run a test case like
"gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I try to build native i686-w64-mingw32 and x86_64-w64-mingw32 configurations.
I have working cross configurations for both and the on stage builds succeed
without issues. But the built compilers have broken default library search
pathes.
For the x86_
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Zachary Turner writes:
>
>> So if a=5 before a function call, then foo(++a, ++a), might invoke
>> foo(6, 6), foo(6, 7), or foo(7, 6).
>
> Or even foo(42, 666).
Or demons might fly out of your nose.
Andrew.
Zachary Turner writes:
> So if a=5 before a function call, then foo(++a, ++a), might invoke
> foo(6, 6), foo(6, 7), or foo(7, 6).
Or even foo(42, 666).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for somet
As the C specification document specifies in section 6.5.2.2 point no 10:
The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual arguments, and
subexpressions within the actual arguments is unspecified, but there
is a sequence point
before the actual call.
Therefore if in any function cal
2009/7/20 :
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion, but no difference in output.
>
> Question: Did you expect different output too?
Not really. Although it may occur with different compiler versions or flags.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point and
http://c-faq.com/expr/seqpo
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments:
>
> //code begin
> #include
>
> main () {
> int a;
> a=1; printf ("1. %d %d\n", ++a, a);
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion, but no difference in output.
>
> Question: Did you expect different output too?
Oh the warnings are telling you, your code is undefined.
-- Pinski
PS gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org is a better mailing list for these t
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your suggestion, but no difference in output.
Question: Did you expect different output too?
Thanks
Quo ting Andrew Pinski :
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:30 AM, wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments:
>
> Try
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:30 AM, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments:
Try using -Wsequence-point. With that option GCC produces:
t.c:6: warning: operation on 'a' may be undefined
(and many warnings of the same wording for every line afterwa
Hello,
Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments:
//code begin
#include
main () {
int a;
a=1; printf ("1. %d %d\n", ++a, a); // 1. 2 2
a=1; printf ("2. %d %d\n", a, a++)
Paul Edwards wrote:
> I then found out that even with old versions of the machine definition,
> I can have the warning removed by simply not defining CONST_INT
> in the PREDICATE_CODES, even though it is allowed when the
> function is called. ie it seems to have no effect on the code
> generation
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Running target unix/
> FAIL: StackTrace2 output - source compiled test
> FAIL: StackTrace2 -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test
> FAIL: StackTrace2 -O3
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Jan Hubicka wrote:
Running target unix/
FAIL: StackTrace2 output - source compiled test
FAIL: StackTrace2 -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test
FAIL: StackTrace2 -O3 output - source compiled tes
19 matches
Mail list logo
