Hi,
I want to insert a new function `test_fn` in plugin and call it in `main`,
but got `undefined reference to `test_fn’ in `ld`. Can someone please give
any help? Thanks.
Here is the example code,
//== plugin.c
#include "gcc-plugin.h"
#include "plugin-version.h"
#include "
We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to define the atomic
structure size and alignment. And looking at this, it turned out that
gcc and clang are implementing this differently. Consider this
testcase
rohan:2274$ cat tmp.c
#include
struct s { int a; int b; int c;};
int
main(void)
{
pri
Snapshot gcc-7-20190822 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20190822/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
On 8/22/19 2:16 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> External Email
>
> --
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 21 2019, Gary Oblock wrote:
>> I'm trying to do some analysis code for an optimization
>> that involves my code looking at all the declarations
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > I think you should have at least four tests of sign of zero result
> > (arguments -0.5, -0.0, 0.0 and 0.5). Probably also tests of values
> > between +/- 0.5 and 0, e.g. test -0.25 and 0.25 as well.
>
> Okay, I have made the following changes and again
> I think you should have at least four tests of sign of zero result
> (arguments -0.5, -0.0, 0.0 and 0.5). Probably also tests of values
> between +/- 0.5 and 0, e.g. test -0.25 and 0.25 as well.
Okay, I have made the following changes and again, the tests pass for roundeven.
void
real_roundeve
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > I'm concerned that this would produce +0.0 for an argument of -0.5 (via
> > -0.5 - 0.5 - -1.0 producing +0.0) when it needs to produce -0.0.
>
> Would the following overhaul be acceptable as the condition is
> specialized for -0.5 and +0.5 only. This se
> I'm concerned that this would produce +0.0 for an argument of -0.5 (via
> -0.5 - 0.5 - -1.0 producing +0.0) when it needs to produce -0.0.
Would the following overhaul be acceptable as the condition is
specialized for -0.5 and +0.5 only. This seems to solve the problem. I
did test the roundeven
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:16 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 21 2019, Gary Oblock wrote:
> > I'm trying to do some analysis code for an optimization
> > that involves my code looking at all the declarations and
> > types there of during the link time optimizations.
> >
> > Note, d
> > Hi Tejas,
> >
> > [ Please do not top-post. ]
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:27:06PM +0530, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > What happens then? "It does not work" is very very vague. At least it
> > seems the compiler does build now?
>
> Oh, compiler builds but instruction is still "bl fadd". It should b
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 21 2019, Gary Oblock wrote:
> I'm trying to do some analysis code for an optimization
> that involves my code looking at all the declarations and
> types there of during the link time optimizations.
>
> Note, doing this for the local variables seems to be trivial
> because of FOR_E
> What happens then? "It does not work" is very very vague. At least it
> seems the compiler does build now?
Oh, compiler builds but instruction is still "bl fadd". It should be
"fadds" right?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:55, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi Tejas,
>
> [ Please do not top-post.
12 matches
Mail list logo
