I wrote a small function to convert u8 to hex:
// converts 4-bit nibble to ascii hex
uint8_t nibbletohex(uint8_t value)
{
if ( value > 9 ) value += 'A' - '0';
return value + '0';
}
// returns value as 2 ascii characters in a 16-bit int
uint16_t u8tohex(uint8_t value)
{
uint16_t hexdigi
Snapshot gcc-5-20150428 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20150428/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 22:58 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I tried:
> >
> > export RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=multi-sim/--param\ foo=1'
> > export RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=multi-sim/--param/foo=1'
>
> Have you tried
> export RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=multi-sim/--param=foo=1'
> ?
>
>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 01:55:42PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Has anyone run the GCC testsuite using a --param option? I am trying
> to do something like:
>
> export RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=multi-sim/--param foo=1'
> make check
>
> But the space in the '--param foo=1' option is causing d
Has anyone run the GCC testsuite using a --param option? I am trying
to do something like:
export RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=multi-sim/--param foo=1'
make check
But the space in the '--param foo=1' option is causing dejagnu to fail.
Perhaps there is a way to specify a param value without a spa
On 03/13/2015 06:04 PM, Marc Gauthier wrote:
> Other than the required 16-byte stack alignment, there's nothing in
> the ABI that requires these extra 16 bytes. Perhaps there was a bad
> implementation of the alloca exception handler at some point a long
> time ago that prompted the extra 16 byte
I was told I should repost this on this ML rather than the gcc-help
list I originally posted this under. Here was my original thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-04/msg00167.html
I came across PR 65559 and 65582 while investigating why I was getting
the "lto1.exe: internal compiler erro
Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Biener
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Jeff Law
Cc: Alan Lawrence; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: dom1 prevents vectorization via partial loop peeling?
O
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Biener
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Jeff Law
Cc: Alan Lawrence; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: dom1 prevents vectorization via partial loop peeling?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:06
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
>> Behalf Of James Greenhalgh
>
> Hi James,
>
>>
>> The stages, timings, and exact rules for which patches are acceptable
>> and when, seem to have drifted quite substantiall
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 10:12 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>
>> After copyrename3, immediately prior to dom1, the loop body looks like:
>>
>>:
>>
>>:
>># i_11 = PHI
>>_5 = a[i_11];
>>_6 = i_11 & _5;
>>if (_6 != 0)
>> goto ;
>>
11 matches
Mail list logo
