On 18/04/2013 21:50, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 11:18 PM, Shiva Chen wrote:
>> Full test2.c.209r.reload is about 296kb and i can't send successfully.
>> Is there another way to send the dump file?
>>
> Did you try to compress it? Another possibility would be send dump only
> for the p
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20130418 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130418/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 2013-04-18 16:58 , Hendrik Greving wrote:
Hi,
this is w.r.t. an older GCC version, I took a quick look and it looks
like it's still roughly the same in recent GCC's.
In function c-decl.c:grokdeclarator: I am debugging something and am
wondering, what does an IDENTIFIER_POINTER (id->identifie
On 04/17/2013 11:18 PM, Shiva Chen wrote:
Full test2.c.209r.reload is about 296kb and i can't send successfully.
Is there another way to send the dump file?
Did you try to compress it? Another possibility would be send dump only
for the particular function.
Hi,
this is w.r.t. an older GCC version, I took a quick look and it looks
like it's still roughly the same in recent GCC's.
In function c-decl.c:grokdeclarator: I am debugging something and am
wondering, what does an IDENTIFIER_POINTER (id->identifier.id.str)
contain? I see long strings in there,
On 2013-04-16 15:00, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm trying to build and install GCC 4.7.2, and I'm getting the following
> error from the "install-mkheaders" target of gcc/Makefile:
[...]
>
> The deletion of syslimits.h, movement of limits.h to syslimits.h, and
> change to the met
Hi,
this might be a question not entirely valid w.r.t. new GCC versions
4.x+. I am using GCC 3.2.x
I have 2 questions regarding fixed_reg_set, call_used_reg_set,
call_fixed_reg_set.
Firstly, are fixed_reg_set, call_used_reg_set, call_fixed_reg_set
always (or supposed to..) the same as fixed_reg,
On 04/17/2013 11:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> According to the comments in pa.h about MASK_JUMP_IN_DELAY, having
> jumps in delay slots of other jumps is one such thing: They don't
> bring benefit to the PA-8000 and they don't work with DWARF2 CFI. As
> far as I know, SPARC and MIPS don't allow
Quoting Steven Bosscher :
Hello delay-slot target maintainers :-)
N.B., that also includes me as ARC maintainer.
First of all: What is still important to handle?
It's clear that the expectations in reorg.c are "anything goes" but
modern RISCs (everything since the PA-8000, say) probably hav
