Hi Jeff:
I have already fixed the bug. this occurs due to register
allocation failed in function global_alloc. After calling the
find_reg(), the reg_renumber still keep the value -1 in it. So the
reload() in reload1.c delete the insns.
I didn't set any call saved registers which means ever
> Note that the m32c port uses PSImode, so it may offer some suggestions
> as example code.
Yes, that's right, but the m32c port uses it as a mode for pointers,
while I'm trying to do it with scalars.
Anyway, thank you very much.
On 12/06/09 20:10, daniel tian wrote:
You might start by monitoring emit_reload_insns's behavior when it handles
your insn.
I just debug the source code with your advice. Check the function
emit_reload_insns.
That insn was deleted before entering funcion emit_reload_insns. It
was deleted
Hi,
It seems that many current uses of list::merge( ) fail to compile
with -std=c++0x, but I don't see a bug in bugzilla for this. Itseems to
result from:
list<_Tp, _Alloc>::
#ifdef __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
merge(list&& __x)
#else
merge(list& __x)
#endif
For c++0x, don't we need BOTH vers
Note that the m32c port uses PSImode, so it may offer some suggestions
as example code.
Hi -
Please be aware of an impending temporary outage machines hosting
gcc.gnu.org, sourceware.org, sources.redhat.com, cygwin.com, and a few
other sites. All email, web, ftp, cvs, git, etc. services will be off
line while the machines are being moved between two colocation
facilities this coming
On 12/07/2009 10:33 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> x86-64 psABI says _Bool has 1 byte and aligned at 1 byte. It also says:
>
> ---
> When a value of type _Bool is passed in a register or on the stack,
> the upper 63 bits of the eightbyte shall be zero.
> ---
>
> However, gcc treats _Bool as cha
On 12/07/2009 10:33 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> x86-64 psABI says _Bool has 1 byte and aligned at 1 byte. It also says:
>
> ---
> When a value of type _Bool is passed in a register or on the stack,
> the upper 63 bits of the eightbyte shall be zero.
> ---
>
> However, gcc treats _Bool as cha
Hi,
x86-64 psABI says _Bool has 1 byte and aligned at 1 byte. It also says:
---
When a value of type _Bool is passed in a register or on the stack,
the upper 63 bits of the eightbyte shall be zero.
---
However, gcc treats _Bool as char:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42324
Given
Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > I had an epiphany this morning and came up with an idea to achieve
> the
> > lookahead I thought I needed, thereby making the costs created by '?'
> a
> > lot more concrete and reliable.
> >
> > Firstly, I have altered the alt_cost adjustment (for '?') in ira-
> costs.c,
> >
Well I have good news to report.
I applied most of your recommended changes, but it still crashed,
still at the same spot:
:0: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
However, I managed to track it down to some floating point stuff
in the i370 code, and got rid of that, and now I can compil
2009/12/6 Frédéric L. W. Meunier :
> Will there be a 4.3.5 release ?
>
> Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-08/msg00066.html , yes, but 4.4.2
> was released almost two months ago.
I expect so.
Richard.
12 matches
Mail list logo
