On 12/20/2012 03:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
I've bootstrapped&tested the LRA branch on ia64 and posted the results
to gcc-testresults
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-12/msg01782.html).
Unfortunately there's nothing in the m
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've bootstrapped&tested the LRA branch on ia64 and posted the results
> to gcc-testresults
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-12/msg01782.html).
>
> Unfortunately there's nothing in the message that shows that this
>
Hello,
I've bootstrapped&tested the LRA branch on ia64 and posted the results
to gcc-testresults
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-12/msg01782.html).
Unfortunately there's nothing in the message that shows that this
wasn't a trunk checkout but the LRA branch.
Is it possible to identify
This is the beta release of binutils 2.23.51.0.7 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2012 1218 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
Hi,
When using -flto is there a way to tell gcc to not inline a particular
function? attribute noinline appears to have no effect. I am using gcc 4.7.2.
The use case is for certain functions that cause optimization problems when
they are inlined. An example is when the function is throwing a c+
you need to talk to someone with a higher rtl rating than myself. sorry.
On 12/20/2012 08:41 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Zadeck
Sent: 20 December 2012 12:46
To: David Edelsohn; GCC Development
Su
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Kenneth Zadeck
> Sent: 20 December 2012 12:46
> To: David Edelsohn; GCC Development
> Subject: Re: Fwd: cselib_record_set breaks due to auto_inc_dec
>
> if i had to guess what was going on here
if i had to guess what was going on here, and since i do not have the
example or even know the platform, i am just guessing, i would say that
at some earlier pass, the sub expression in the regnote and the second
set in the parallel were the same expression and that someone changed
the second s
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
> Matos
> Sent: 19 December 2012 17:00
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: cselib_record_set breaks due to auto_inc_dec
>
> Hi,
>
> After pro and epilogue pass I have the following epilogue
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:51:29PM +0100, David Brown wrote:
> Is there much to be gained from keeping 486 support - or
> alternatively, is there much to be gained by dropping it at the same
> time?
In practice, there is very little difference betweeen 486 and Pentium
for code what will be genera
On 19/12/2012 23:32, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I also couldn't find any strong indication that one could purchase
VHDL or an IP module to build an i386dx class System on Chip.
I don't think this would be one to worry about. The x86 architecture
would be massively inefficient to implement in any s
11 matches
Mail list logo
