[resend] implement assembly variant routines for IEEE floating-point under libgcc for cortex-m0

Hi All, sorry, sending previous mail with proper subject line. For cortex-m0 (armv6-m) target, i observed that ieee floating-point functions under libgcc are implemented in C. This takes lot of memory if one uses floating-point in their applciations. I agree that usage of fp in cortex-m0 devices

implement assembly variant routines for IEEE floating-point under libgcc

Hi All, For cortex-m0 (armv6-m) target, i observed that ieee floating-point functions under libgcc are implemented in C. This takes lot of memory if one uses floating-point in their applcations. I agree that usage of fp in cortex-m0 devices might be minimal. I wanted to check if its good idea to

LTO bootstrap compare errors for ARM64

Hi, I am trying to bootstrap of GCC 4.9 FSF branch with LTO on native Aarch64 , The bootstrap build results in compare errors. Command line. gcc-4_9/configure --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --disable-werror --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --prefix=/work/vekumar/lto

Re: gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html (was: Question for ARM person re asm_fprintf)(

On Aug 4, 2014, at 6:00 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> The page is >> unfortunately out of date (e.g. binutils+sim now lives in the >> same git repo) but it gives you the idea. > > Sooo, any volunteer to up

gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html (was: Question for ARM person re asm_fprintf)(

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > The page is > unfortunately out of date (e.g. binutils+sim now lives in the > same git repo) but it gives you the idea. Sooo, any volunteer to update this page? Doesn't have to be perfect, even incremental i

[GSoC] Status - 20140804

Hi Community, The Google Summer of Code is in its final month, and our students made good progress on their projects. I very much hope that the talented developers who worked on GCC in this year's program will continue to hack on and contribute to GCC outside of the GSoC program! It's has bee

Re: Implementation of Zeta functions in libstdc++

On 08/03/2014 08:28 PM, Florian Goth wrote: Hi! Thanks Ed for the kind reception of this idea. To show what I have done so far I have set up a git repository here: https://github.com/CaptainSifff/zeta Obviously it is not yet in a state where it looks like sth. from the standard library; it still

Re: Implementation of Zeta functions in libstdc++

Hi! Thanks Ed for the kind reception of this idea. To show what I have done so far I have set up a git repository here: https://github.com/CaptainSifff/zeta Obviously it is not yet in a state where it looks like sth. from the standard library; it still uses my conventions right now. This commit h

gcc-4.10-20140803 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.10-20140803 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.10-20140803/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.10 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: writing patterns

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Richard Biener >>> wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Prathame

[GSoC] doubts in writing rotate patterns

This patch adds the following rotate pattern: ((T) ((T2) X << CNT1)) + ((T) ((T2) X >> CNT2)) iff CNT1 + CNT2 == B Depends on the following patch (not yet committed): https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg00128.html * genmatch.c (dt_simplify::capture_max): Change value to 6. * match-r

Re: [GSoC] replacing op in c_expr

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> I am having few issues replacing op in c_expr. >> I thought of following possibilities: >> >> a) create a new vec vector new_code. >> for each token in code >> { >> if