Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100128 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100128/
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
Ian Bolton wrote:
Hi again,
Thanks for your answer to my other question.
I just found a case, where an allocno wasn't getting a register,
when I thought it should, since it was referenced 24 times.
I looked in setup_allocno_priorities() to see how this was used
to determine the priority and fou
Hi again,
Thanks for your answer to my other question.
I just found a case, where an allocno wasn't getting a register,
when I thought it should, since it was referenced 24 times.
I looked in setup_allocno_priorities() to see how this was used
to determine the priority and found this line:
mult
On 01/28/2010 04:01 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> dladdr()
>>
>
> Thanks Andrew but this answer seems to assume I am trying to obtain
> this in a C program from a previously compiled function.
>
> However, I am inside GCC which access to t
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
>> accepted the contribution of the gccgo front-end and gcc-specific runtime
>> for the Go language with Ian Taylor appointed maintainer. The GCC
>
> What
Ian Bolton wrote:
Thanks for the detailed answer.
While we're on the subject of assign_hard_reg, I notice the costs and
min_cost variable are set but never used (decisions are being made with
the full_costs array and min_full_cost). Should they be referenced
somehow or are they just redundant?
Hello!
I am play with my Asus P535 phone and can't find best cflags
>asusp535 ~ # cat /proc/cpuinfo
>Processor : XScale-PXA270 rev 7 (v5l)
>BogoMIPS: 519.37
>Features: swp half thumb fastmult edsp iwmmxt
>CPU implementer : 0x69
>CPU architecture: 5TE
>CPU variant : 0x0
>C
I've recently upgraded to GCC 4.3.2 from 4.2.2, and I noticed a strange
change in how volatile bitmask structures are optimized.
Consider the following code:
/* 32-bit MMIO */
struct hardware {
int parm1:8;
int :4;
int parm2:4;
int parm3:15;
int parm4:1;
};
void f1()
{
volatile stru
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Now, I wonder in this more general case, where can I obtain the
> function decl (so I can get its assembler name) for the function the
> pointer is pointing to?
>
Allow me to revive this question by asking if I can obtain the
function asse
Now my GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS refuses anything that is not a REG
or a CONSTANT_ADDRESS:
int legitimate_address1(enum machine_mode MODE,rtx X)
{
if(CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P(X))
return 1;
if(GET_CODE(X)==REG && is_base_reg(REGNO(X)))
return 1;
r
This question is in response to Ian's answer here:
Ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00462.html
Adding to the referenced inquiry, there are on the machine a condition
codes register for each register.
I would like to model this by writing define_insns in such a way as to
access a regis
On 01/28/2010 01:15 PM, koala01 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to discuss about _cplusplus symbol value.
>
> for now, we have:
> 0 if we do not compile in C++
> 1 if we compile in C++
You mean __cplusplus, double underscore.
Anyway, we have a long standing Bugzilla about it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
Hi,
I would like to discuss about _cplusplus symbol value.
for now, we have:
0 if we do not compile in C++
1 if we compile in C++
And we have the opportunity to test if we compile in C++1x only by
checking the definition of the symbol __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__.
I know that C++1x is not yet
13 matches
Mail list logo
