On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I've been working on GCC's C++11 atomic implementation. In discussions with
> Lawrence, I've recently discovered a fundamental change in what libstdc++-v3
> is likely to provide as far as an implementation.
>
> Previously, header files provi
On 5 October 2011 00:10, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Iain Buclaw writes:
>
>> The active development of the D frontend would continue to be mirrored
>> in an external repository, but will occasionally be merged into GDC
>> project.
>
> Well, Go does set a precedent for this. The main issue here is
Hi, Maintainer,
I found some incidents in
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-NEON-Intrinsics.html#ARM-NEON-Intrinsics
Please check the following:
|6.54.3.8 Comparison (less-than-or-equal-to)
|
| uint32x2_t vcle_u32 (uint32x2_t, uint32x2_t)
| Form of expected instruction(s): vcge.u32 d0
niXman writes:
> "lang_hooks" - what this? where is declared?
Running grep will show you that it is declared in langhooks.h.
The lang hooks are frontend hooks called from the middle-end. The hooks
are defined in langhooks.h.
Ian
Iain Buclaw writes:
> The active development of the D frontend would continue to be mirrored
> in an external repository, but will occasionally be merged into GDC
> project.
Well, Go does set a precedent for this. The main issue here is that
this means that there is (another) directory containi
Iain Buclaw writes:
> On 4 October 2011 20:36, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> These patches address two areas of the D language:
>>> 1) D calling convention.
>>> 2) Naked functions on i386 and x86_64
>>>
>>> Some work would need to be done on nak
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111004 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111004/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM, David Brown wrote:
> "naked" functions are often useful in embedded systems, and are therefore
> useful (and implemented) on many gcc targets. It would make sense to have
> the attribute available universally in gcc, if that doesn't involve a lot of
> extra work, e
On 04/10/11 21:36, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
These patches address two areas of the D language:
1) D calling convention.
2) Naked functions on i386 and x86_64
Some work would need to be done on naked functions at least first so
that changes requir
Hello.
"lang_hooks" - what this? where is declared?
Thanks!
2011/10/5 Iyer, Balaji V
>
> Hello,
> For most of the things you are looking for, please look for a function
> called build_decl. It is used in several places inside GCC. Let me give you a
> small example,
>
> If you do the fol
Hello,
For most of the things you are looking for, please look for a function
called build_decl. It is used in several places inside GCC. Let me give you a
small example,
If you do the following:
tree x = build_decl (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, VAR_DECL, get_identifer("ii"),
integer_type_node)
> "Iain" == Iain Buclaw writes:
Ian> There is a directory gcc/d/zlib, but gcc already has a top-level zlib
Ian> directory.
Iain> Zlib there is the version released with the D Phobos library, it is
Iain> slightly newer. But is harmless to remove.
You could alternatively update the version in
On 4 October 2011 20:36, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> These patches address two areas of the D language:
>> 1) D calling convention.
>> 2) Naked functions on i386 and x86_64
>>
>> Some work would need to be done on naked functions at least first so
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> The original copyrights for the GDC D front-end for GCC are in the
> name of David Friedman, who has been MIA since 2007. Since the
> project has been revived, all changes and additions have been
> copyrighted in my name, Michael's, and Vincenzo's. Would
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael LIAO wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote:
please do
On 4 October 2011 17:50, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
>> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
>> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starti
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> These patches address two areas of the D language:
> 1) D calling convention.
> 2) Naked functions on i386 and x86_64
>
> Some work would need to be done on naked functions at least first so
> that changes required are only to gcc/config. I wou
On 4 October 2011 15:02, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Iain Buclaw writes:
>
>> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
>> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
>> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with getting the
>> ball
On 4 October 2011 09:41, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 08:08 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
>> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
>> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with g
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with getting the
> ball rolling. What would need to b
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Ulf Magnusson writes:
>>
>>> Is there some reason why GCC couldn't generate this code for the first
>>> version of C::f()? Is this a failure of optimization, or am I missing
>>> som
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ulf Magnusson writes:
>
>> Is there some reason why GCC couldn't generate this code for the first
>> version of C::f()? Is this a failure of optimization, or am I missing
>> something in how __restricted works?
>
> It's a failure of optim
Iain Buclaw writes:
> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with getting the
> ball rolling. What would need to be done? And what are the pr
Thank you very much. I misunderstood the document.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwakely@gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 October 2011 12:48
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Not conform to c90?
>
> On 4 October 2011 12:09, Bingfeng Mei wro
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 04:09:03AM -0700, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> According to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Zero-Length.html#Zero-Length
> A zero-length array should have a length of 1 in c90.
No, it says that zero-length arrays are not allowed in C90, so if you
want to be
On 4 October 2011 12:09, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> According to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Zero-Length.html#Zero-Length
> A zero-length array should have a length of 1 in c90.
I think you've misunderstood that page. You cannot have a zero-length
array in C90, what that pa
Hello,
According to
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Zero-Length.html#Zero-Length
A zero-length array should have a length of 1 in c90.
But I tried
struct
{
char a[0];
} ZERO;
void main()
{
int a[0];
printf ("size = %d\n", sizeof(ZERO));
}
Compiled with gcc 4.7
~/work/instal
On 10/04/2011 08:08 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with getting the
> ball rolling. What would need to be don
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> pa...@matos-sorge.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
>
>> I am trying to find where IRA, is deleting trivial insn like:
>> (set r1 r1)
>
> Search for "Discard obvious no-ops" in the function reload in the file
> gcc/reload1.c.
Thanks, that's exactly it.
--
PMatos
Hi,
I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with getting the
ball rolling. What would need to be done? And what are the processes
required? (ie: pa
30 matches
Mail list logo
