On 1/19/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Morten Welinder wrote:
> >>For sure a/b is undefined
> >
> >In C, it is. In assembler it is perfectly well defined, i.e., it
> >traps. But how is the
> >trap handler supposed to know
Hi all,
I am having some problem while allocating floating point registers in GCC 4.1.1.
As of now my target does not have floating point registers. To support
floating point operations, i added 8 floating point registers that i
want the gcc to allocate only when the mode is MODE_FLOAT.
I have
No. This is an undocumented, unnamed, unconditional warning.
We are working on fixing those for GCC 4.3 :-)
Could you explain what that means? What exactly is the problem that
you are talking about fixing? What change is planned?
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/ is reportedly a free
book on C -- but it is C89, more or less.
If it is well written, we could look for people to update it to modern
C. But if it isn't well written and clear, it probably isn't worth
the trouble.
If a few of you who are familiar with o
Hi,
Look in tree.def.
Given the RECORD_TYPE node, walk down TYPE_FIELDS looking for the
FIELD_DECL that you want.
To assign to a field use a COMPONENT_REF.
Is it possible to write a short example how a it could be referred the
tree of variable field? Let's say that we have somewhere defined
On 19/01/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. This is an undocumented, unnamed, unconditional warning.
We are working on fixing those for GCC 4.3 :-)
Could you explain what that means? What exactly is the problem that
you are talking about fixing? What change is planned
"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am having some problem while allocating floating point registers in GCC
> 4.1.1.
> As of now my target does not have floating point registers. To support
> floating point operations, i added 8 floating point registers that i
> want the gcc to allo
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have done the following:
> > 1. Defined them in FIXED_REGISTERS, CALL_USED_REGISTERS.
> > 2. Ordered them using REG_ALLOC_ORDER.
> > 3. Created a separate class in enum reg_class (FLOAT).
> > 4. Assigned a specific character to identify the partic
Richard Stallman wrote:
> http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/ is reportedly a free
> book on C -- but it is C89, more or less.
>
> If it is well written, we could look for people to update it to modern
> C. But if it isn't well written and clear, it probably isn't worth
> the trouble.
>
>
On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:42 AM, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Is it possible to write a short example how a it could be referred the
tree of variable field?
Sure, just compile up the C code for what you want to do, run the
debugger, watch what it builds and how it builds it. If you want to
know wha
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Ben Elliston wrote:
>> I found out that page http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html points to
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-SVN/ mailing list but it doesn't exist. It's
>> in section "Write access policies" above "Free for all" subsection.
>> It seems that correct list is http://gcc.
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070119 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070119/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
I am using gcc 3.3.5 with the latest m68hc1x patches to compile programs for a
9s12 processor, and cc1 calls abort when compiling the following code:
void func()
{
short a, *b;
a &= *b;
}
The rtl for the instructions dump as follows:
-> (insn 9 6 10 (nil) (set (reg:HI 53)
-> (mem/f:H
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> So please use contrib/test_installed
> This script seems quite outdated: it tests g77 and not gfortran, even with
> the latest 4.3.0 snapshot (20070112). As I was primarily interested in
> the gfortran tests, I replaced g77 by gfortran everywher
"Sean D'Epagnier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -> (insn 10 9 11 (nil) (set (reg:HI 54)
> -> (and:HI (reg:HI 53)
> -> (mem:HI (mem/f:HI (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 49 virtual-stack-vars)
> -> (const_int 2 [0x2])) [0 b+0 S2 A16]) [0 S2 A8])))
> -1 (nil)
> ->
Here is an innovative new build failure, as seen on i686-apple-darwin9:
../../gcc/gcc/expmed.c:4179: warning: signed and unsigned type in
conditional expression
make[3]: *** [expmed.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** [all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is an innovative new build failure, as seen on i686-apple-darwin9:
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/expmed.c:4179: warning: signed and unsigned type in
> conditional expression
> make[3]: *** [expmed.o] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
Yikes, my faul
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is an innovative new build failure, as seen on i686-apple-darwin9:
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/expmed.c:4179: warning: signed and unsigned type in
> conditional expression
> make[3]: *** [expmed.o] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
Fixed like so.
On Jan 19, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Yikes, my fault. I wonder why it didn't fail for me?
Trivially, you've not updated your tree... See, you did an rm -rf of
the build tree after -Werrror was broken on Jan 4th and built, but
you didn't update to pick up the fix for that b
>
> Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Here is an innovative new build failure, as seen on i686-apple-darwin9:
> >
> > ../../gcc/gcc/expmed.c:4179: warning: signed and unsigned type in
> > conditional expression
> > make[3]: *** [expmed.o] Error 1
> > make[2]: *** [all-stage2-gcc] Erro
20 matches
Mail list logo
