Boris Boesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, so what have I to do to write a back-end where all addresses
> are given in bits?
That's kind of an extreme case. But it sounds like you are following
the right approach.
> Without these changes the compiler stops with internal error
> mesages
Am 05.12.2007 um 22:32 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
Boris Boesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I assume that GCC internals assume that memory can be byte (8 bits)
addressed - for historical reasons.
No. gcc internals assume that memory can be addressed in units of
size BITS_PER_UNIT. The de
Boris Boesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume that GCC internals assume that memory can be byte (8 bits)
> addressed - for historical reasons.
No. gcc internals assume that memory can be addressed in units of
size BITS_PER_UNIT. The default for BITS_PER_UNIT is 8. I have
written back
On 2007-11-27 18:29, Michael Eager wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
> >
> >> I think that there is a pervasive understanding that SImode is
> >> single precision integer, 32-bits long.
> >
> > Only among contributors not considering non-8-bit bytes. SI
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
> There's also __mode__ (__SI__) in include/sys/types.h
Not in GCC. I don't know about the portability assumptions of newlib.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Eager wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
I think that there is a pervasive understanding that SImode is
single precision integer, 32-bits long.
Only among contributors not considering non-8-bit bytes. SImode is 4
times QImode, 4*BITS_PER_UNIT bi
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
I think that there is a pervasive understanding that SImode is
single precision integer, 32-bits long.
Only among contributors not considering non-8-bit bytes. SImode is 4
times QImode, 4*BITS_PER_UNIT bits, and may not exist
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
> I think that there is a pervasive understanding that SImode is
> single precision integer, 32-bits long.
Only among contributors not considering non-8-bit bytes. SImode is 4
times QImode, 4*BITS_PER_UNIT bits, and may not exist (or at least not be
pa
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
Well, can't do that. This is not target dependent.
DImode gets defined, and used, for long long in unwind-dw2.c.
Is it defined what DWARF unwind information looks like when made up of
bytes wider than 8 bits? Certainly GCC's
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
> Well, can't do that. This is not target dependent.
> DImode gets defined, and used, for long long in unwind-dw2.c.
Is it defined what DWARF unwind information looks like when made up of
bytes wider than 8 bits? Certainly GCC's code won't allow for it
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ross Ridge wrote:
>> Miceal Eagar writes:
>>> I'm working with a target that has 32-bit word addressing,
>>> so there is a define of BITS_PER_UNIT = 32.
>>
>> According to the documentation, this changes the size of a byte to 32
>> bits, instead of the m
Ross Ridge wrote:
Miceal Eagar writes:
I'm working with a target that has 32-bit word addressing,
so there is a define of BITS_PER_UNIT = 32.
According to the documentation, this changes the size of a byte to 32
bits, instead of the more usual 8 bits.
This causes a problem: an error saying
Miceal Eagar writes:
>I'm working with a target that has 32-bit word addressing,
>so there is a define of BITS_PER_UNIT = 32.
According to the documentation, this changes the size of a byte to 32
bits, instead of the more usual 8 bits.
>This causes a problem: an error saying that there is
>no em
13 matches
Mail list logo
