Microchip which makes the Pic32 embedded processor (Mips32) has the
naked attribute in their C compiler.
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51686F.pdf
On 05/03/2013 03:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Glad to see the push-back on this :-)
reed kotler writes:
On 05/03/2013 01:06 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips porting?
You can implement it and submit the patch
Hi Fotis,
I finally found my changes made so far for gccgo on a computer suffering
double hard disk crashes. Hopefully most of the changes are available on
the backup I found. As it looks they were not too extensive. I'll send a
patch asap to the bug-hurd list, so you can continue from there (when
My general opinion is that to not allow the naked attribute is to
pontificate over a group of sophisticated gcc users that are fully
capable of understanding what the naked attribute does. They can read
the manual and accept the responsibility for using the feature.
The ramifications of the fu
David Brown writes:
> Personally, I've used "naked" when I want to write pure assembly code
> and don't want extra stack frames or "return" codes. I don't want to
> write stand-alone assembly files (I've written mountains of them in the
> past, and hope they stay in the past). I am happier using
Hello,
It seems to me there's a bug in
simplify_const_relational_operation:simplify-rtx.c.
If you set STORE_VALUE_FLAG to -1, if you get to
simplify_const_relational_operation with code: NE, mode: BImode, op0: reg, op1:
const_int 0, then you end up in line 4717 calling get_mode_bounds.
get_mod
On 03/05/13 06:03, reed kotler wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 08:41 PM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>> 2013/5/3 reed kotler :
>>> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
>>> attribute.
>>>
>>> There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement
>>> between
>>> various
>>>
On 03/05/13 06:40, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 00:15, reed kotler wrote:
>
>> There was some confusion on the llvm list because some tests were run on
>> targets that did not support the naked attribute.
>>
>> I think we are thinking now that the return statement should not be emi
On 03/05/13 10:06, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
>>
>> Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips porting?
>> You can implement it and submit the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
>> and I believe the mips maintainers are willing to have review with you. :)
>>
Thanks Ian.
Following the link provided by you, I have learned how stddef.h
changed to adapt the which first came at
FreeBSD 5.
The main change that affects from to
was explained at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00560.html
What still confuse me is that doesn't define foo_t by using
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Glad to see the push-back on this :-)
>
> reed kotler writes:
>> On 05/03/2013 01:06 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>>> 2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips
porting?
You can
Glad to see the push-back on this :-)
reed kotler writes:
> On 05/03/2013 01:06 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>> 2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
>>> Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips
>>> porting?
>>> You can implement it and submit the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
>>> and
Hi,
I'm (still) working on a new gcc-4.5.2 backend for a private processor.
Today i'm concerned about the debug mode using DWARF2.
Here is my problem:
When I use GDB on a executable compiled with -g option I notice that the
addresses of all my local variables are wrong.
I read gccint doc and tri
On 05/03/2013 01:06 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips porting?
You can implement it and submit the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
and I believe the mips maintainers are willing to have review with you. :)
Oops~
2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
>
> Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips porting?
> You can implement it and submit the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> and I believe the mips maintainers are willing to have review with you. :)
>
Oops~ I just noticed that the mips maintain
15 matches
Mail list logo
