sorry I get incorrect gcc version info
the correct version which doing dump is gcc 4.1.2
I dump rtl with the gcc 4.4.1 have the line info
thanks for you reply
2010/5/20 Ian Lance Taylor :
> kito writes:
>
>> Hello every body
>> I have read the rtl.h & rtl.c,
>> but I don't realize the format f
kito writes:
> Hello every body
> I have read the rtl.h & rtl.c,
> but I don't realize the format for insn, call_insn and junp_insn
>
> it's define in rtl.def
>
> DEF_RTL_EXPR(JUMP_INSN, "jump_insn", "iuuBieie0", RTX_INSN)
>
> and it's dump by some real program
>
> (jump_insn 14 /* i */
>
> "Bernhard" == Bernhard Reutner-Fischer writes:
Bernhard> - should handle structs.
There are some other difficult cases.
First, don't let this discourage you :-). I think this would be a
useful feature.
I think in general you cannot actually ever tell if a header is unused
or not. Maybe
Hello every body
I have read the rtl.h & rtl.c,
but I don't realize the format for insn, call_insn and junp_insn
it's define in rtl.def
DEF_RTL_EXPR(JUMP_INSN, "jump_insn", "iuuBieie0", RTX_INSN)
and it's dump by some real program
(jump_insn 14 /* i */
13 /* u */
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Lénaïc Huard wrote:
> If I remove the virtual keyword to make the class non-polymorphic, the
> constructor is still compiled twice, as well as the destructor.
>
> Would anyone have the patience to explain me why the constructors/destructors
> are compiled several t
Hello,
I have a question about code generated by g++.
When compiling a C++ class, even as simple as the one below,
the code for the constructor is instantiated twice and the code for the
destructor is instanciated twice or three times.
= myclass.cpp =
class MyClass
{
MyClass();
virtu
Sn.Yetkili;
Ürünlerinizin tanıtımı ve firmanızın marka prestiji konusunda değer katacağını
düşündüğüm bir reklam teklifidir.
1 ay boyunca erkek hedef kitlede öğle kuşağında 4 ayrı kanalda
aksam kuşağında 4 ayrı kanalda toplaMda 8 ayrı kanalda yayınlanacak dolu dolu
bir reklam paketidir.
Yes, that is the reason. One of our generated source file
is compiled with -O0 with no particular reason and no one
noticed. Thanks.
Cheers,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 May 2010 16:12
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@g
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I am hit by an ICE in LTO (latest GCC4.5 branch). The problem
> is that it shows up in our target/our target-specific application,
> so I cannot really reduce test case and file a bug.
>
>
> getShortVersionString.clone.0/1(-1) @0x2aa0
Hello,
I am hit by an ICE in LTO (latest GCC4.5 branch). The problem
is that it shows up in our target/our target-specific application,
so I cannot really reduce test case and file a bug.
getShortVersionString.clone.0/1(-1) @0x2aa0c5fea0 (clone of
getShortVersionString/4733) availability:local
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I note that many of the questions already added to that page could be seen
> as suggesting a greater role for the RMs than there is at present in
> setting directions for GCC development. RMs (in their RM capacity) do not
> set priorities or make plans for GCC developm
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Release%20Manager%20Q%26A
I note that many of the questions already added to that page could be seen
as suggesting a greater role for the RMs than there is at present in
setting directions for GCC development. RMs (in their
12 matches
Mail list logo
