shreyas krishnan wrote:
> Hi,
> For this simple loop, I get the following distance and direction
> vector
>
> Distance {1,-1)
> Direction (2,0)
>
> for(J = 1; J <= N-1; J++)
> for(I = 1; I <= N-1; I++)
> {
> XX = X[I+1][J];
> XY = X[I][J+1];
> }
>
>
Hi,
from gcc-3.4.4/gcc/config/v850/v850.h i got some ideas
about the registers (#defs REGISTER_NAMES and
ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES) and about the use of them
from the comments to #def REG_ALLOC_ORDER.
In that file i've also read about an option "ghs", does
that one switch to the Greenhills ABI?
Hello,
I'm working on a the sign extension elimination pass.
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01087.html for details)
I would like to merge these two instructions:
(insn 1 0 2 0 (set (reg/v:Xmode r)
(sign_extend:Xmode (op:Ymode (...
(insn 2 1 3 0 (set (lhs) (rhs)))
w
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Leehod Baruch wrote:
> *** 329,334
> --- 328,341
> GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (x)),
> SUBREG_BYTE (x));
> return op0 ? op0 : x;
> + }
> + if (code == SET)
> + {
> +
>>(insn 1 0 2 0 (set (reg/v:Xmode r)
>>(sign_extend:Xmode (op:Ymode (...
>>(insn 2 1 3 0 (set (lhs) (rhs)))
> To summarise, the change above is not unreasonable and I'd be
> happy to allow this change to simplify-rtx.c, but I'd be more
> cautious about where and why it was used. For e
Hi,
I'm trying to implement a tree pass that warns about bad array
accesses as suggested for PR 8268 by Jeff Law. However, I have trouble
with the following:
char digit_vector[5];
const char *ggc_alloc_string(int length) {
return digit_vector + ((length - 17) * 2);
}
this translates to:
ggc
From: drizzle drizzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how to compile gcc
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:48:56 -0400
If you are objective is to debug gcc, then all the necessary setup is
already done...Check this documentation
From: drizzle drizzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how to compile gcc
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:48:56 -0400
If you are objective is to debug gcc, then all the necessary setup is
already done...Check this documentation
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 10:33:21PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > No. How could that possibly be?
> > We can't execute code for static
> > variable initializers, so how can we gimplify?
> What do you mean by this, exactly?
If you turn a static initializer into a code sequence, then it isn't a
s
> Sure. So far I don't see a problem though.
>
>
> > IE if we have something very funky like:
> >
> > static int c;
> > static int d;
> > static struct foo *a = &{&c, &d};
> >
> > (and if you look, andrew found a case where we are producing
> > &, so this is a possibility, AFAICT)
>
> I disbe
> And would that be because analyze_expr isn't implemented for Ada?
That doesn't bother me so much, actually (mainly because i don't care
about Ada). It's the fact that it's popping up in C/C++ that does.
>
> > IE if we have something very funky like:
> >
> > static int c;
> > static int d;
>
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:32:34PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> See PR 23171.
Ok.
> If analyze_expr (or something) actually did that, i'd be a very happy
> man.
> It doesn't, unfortunately.
> Another perfectly reasonable solution would be to force us to not
> generate such crap in the first plac
I've reviewed all 311 bugs that were targeted at 4.0.2/4.1.0 and that
were marked as 4.1 regressions.
My first comment is that we had a lot of bugs targeted at 4.1.0 that
should never have been so targeted. Please remember that bugs that do
not effect primary or secondary targets should not have
13 matches
Mail list logo
