On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, FX wrote:
In fortran/trans-decl.c, we have a comment above the code building function
decls, saying:
The SPEC parameter specifies the function argument and return type
specification according to the fnspec function type attribute. */
I was away from GCC developmen
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:07:37PM +0200, FX wrote:
> In fortran/trans-decl.c, we have a comment above the code building function
> decls, saying:
>
>>The SPEC parameter specifies the function argument and return type
>>specification according to the fnspec function type attribute. */
>
In fortran/trans-decl.c, we have a comment above the code building function
decls, saying:
>The SPEC parameter specifies the function argument and return type
>specification according to the fnspec function type attribute. */
I was away from GCC development for some time, so this is new
On 2014-06-06, 10:48 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Hello All:
I was looking further the aspect of reducing register pressure based on
Register Allocation and Instruction Scheduling and the
Following observation being made on reducing register pressure based on the
existing papers on reducing r
Hello All:
I was looking further the aspect of reducing register pressure based on
Register Allocation and Instruction Scheduling and the
Following observation being made on reducing register pressure based on the
existing papers on reducing register pressure
Based on scheduling approach.
Does
Hi,
I've noticed that Constraint_error warning produced by
gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/div_no_warning.adb disappears if the target runtime
contains :
"Configurable_Run_Time : constant Boolean := False;"
* x86 native gnat contains Configurable_Run_Time := False ==> no warning
* Cross gnat port w
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>>>
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>>>
>>> a) Why is 4 hard-coded here: ?
>>> in write_nary_simplifiers
The intent of the patch change is clear.
The strange thing concern the variable "A" declared this way "A : String (1 ..
1);", used that way "A := F;" and displayed in tree (gnu_target) as a
RECORD_TYPE instead of an ARRAY_TYPE.
The test to know if a temporary for return value is needed only
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> I have few questions regarding genmatch:
>>
>> a) Why is 4 hard-coded here: ?
>> in write_nary_simplifiers:
>> fprintf (f, " tree captures[4] = {};\n");
>
> Magic number (
> strangely my var_decl for 'a' is a record and not an array_type so the 'if'
> condition is false (and true on X86_64) I looked for somewhere in my
> backend something that would transform an array_type into a record_type but
> I did not find anything.
The comment should clearly state the int
Hi,
The patch modifies gcc/ada/gcc-interface/trans.c that way :
/* First, create the temporary for the return value if we need it: for a
- variable-sized return type if there is no target or if this is slice,
- because the gimplifier doesn't support these cases; or for a function
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
