Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
a patch. What is it then?
I remembered a week as well, but http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html sa
Hi,
Is there somebody who is able to give me a hint, how to manage it to pass
register passed arguments in two different registers ? I need this for the
x86_64 port. The MS ABI passes floating-points in XMM registers, but
additionally for va-sake within the standard integer registers as shadows
On 02/03/07, Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
>
> Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
> a patch. What is it then?
I remember
CodeSourcery is gearing up to submit support for the VxWorks RTP PIC
model. Six targets are affected: arm, i386, mips, rs6000, sh and sparc.
All this code is conditional on TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP being true and refers
to two other macros: VXWORKS_GOTT_BASE and VXWORKS_GOTT_INDEX.
Before submitting pa
Hi all,
In an IPA pass, for each CFG node, I have a tree decl member from
which I can access the return type, name of the function, argument
names and its types, but I can't seem to find a way to get the
function code. I would guess it would be a basic block list but I
don't know where I can get
Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there somebody who is able to give me a hint, how to manage it to pass
> register passed arguments in two different registers ? I need this for the
> x86_64 port. The MS ABI passes floating-points in XMM registers, but
> additionally for va-sake within
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/02/07 10:12:
In an IPA pass, for each CFG node, I have a tree decl member from
which I can access the return type, name of the function, argument
names and its types, but I can't seem to find a way to get the
function code. I would guess it would be a basic block list
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Wrap it in #ifdef TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP.
>
> 2) Provide an always-false definition of TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP in
> arm.h, i386.h, etc. Also provide dummy definitions of the
> VXWORKS_GOTT_* macros.
>
> 3) Provide an always-false definit
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00167.html
This patch looks wrong to me. I don't understand how it could be
correct in the presence of __attribute__ ((aligned (N))). It checks
TYPE_PACKED but not TYPE_ALIGN or TYPE_USER_ALIGN. The default hook
assumes that objects larger th
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) Wrap it in #ifdef TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP.
>>
>> 2) Provide an always-false definition of TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP in
>> arm.h, i386.h, etc. Also provide dummy definitions of the
>> VXWORKS_GOTT_
On 3/2/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/02/07 10:12:
> In an IPA pass, for each CFG node, I have a tree decl member from
> which I can access the return type, name of the function, argument
> names and its types, but I can't seem to find a way to get the
>
[ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
> rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
>
> "Trust but verify" starts with trust.
What I am about to say is probably an o
> And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> there at the time).
Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I am aware of the define_constraints patch. I am thinking about
> working on the H8 and M68K ports at least. How urgent is this? FWIW,
> I've reproduced the ICE that Zack mentioned, but I haven't
> investigated it.
It's not
"Devang Patel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00167.html
> >
> > This patch looks wrong to me. I don't understand how it could be
> > correct in the presence of __attribute__ ((aligned (N))). It checks
> > TYPE_PACKED but not TYPE_ALIGN or
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 1) Wrap it in #ifdef TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP.
> >>
> >> 2) Provide an always-false definition of TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP in
> >> arm.h, i386.h, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
> Indeed I disagree
Hello,
During my work on the selective scheduler I have triggered an assert in
our code saying that a fall-through edge should have e->src->next_bb ==
e->dest. This was for a bb with EXIT_BLOCK as its fall-through
successor, but its next_bb pointing to another block.
I was wondering why veri
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> [ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
>
> Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
> > rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
> >
> > "Trust but verify" s
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
On 02/03/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then chec
What an interesting and unproductive discussion but I hope it ends
here or should I call somebody "a member of a German political party
very popular around 1940"? :-)
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 02/03/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrot
> I could say much more (there are interesting stories about the
> behind-the-scenes politics) but it's off-topic.
Please think about writing a book telling the whole story when the dust will
have settled. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
Has anyone seen this bootstrap failure? I only get it on my hppa*-hp-hpux*
builds, not on ia64-hp-hpux* or on Linux builds. I assume it is related
to the include-fixed changes but I don't know why I only get it for some
platforms. I get it with parallel and non-parallel builds.
Steve Ellcey
[E
Dear all,
Google Summer of Code 2007 is on [1] and I hope GCC will participate
again [2]. This year the program starts much earlier [3]. Mentoring
organisations are expected to apply from March 5 until March 12 (that
is, next week!), while student applications will be accepted from
March 14 until
> Devang Patel writes:
>> Is there a reason why op0 is V4SF
Devang> It is destination so, yes this is wrong.
>> and op1 is V4SI (and not V8HI)?
Devang> condition should be v4si, but it is not op1. So this is also not
correct.
>> And also, why not use if_then_else instead of unspec (in all
On Mar 2, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
"Trust but verify" starts with tr
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 02:12:30PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> CodeSourcery is gearing up to submit support for the VxWorks RTP PIC
> model. Six targets are affected: arm, i386, mips, rs6000, sh and sparc.
> All this code is conditional on TARGET_VXWORKS_RTP being true and refers
> to two ot
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Google Summer of Code 2007 is on [1] and I hope GCC will participate
> again [2]. This year the program starts much earlier [3]. Mentoring
> organisations are expected to apply from March 5 until March 12 (that
> is, next week!), while student ap
> > Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
> > GCC side. As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial
> > interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF
> > side.
>
> It was not anywhere near that simple; there were a numbe
Hello,
I have only recently begun to test using gcc version 4.0 and later and have
found that the -I- option has been deprecated. The documentation in these
later releases indicates that one part of the -I- option has been replaced
with a new option, namely -iquote. Unfortunately, that is not th
On 3/2/07, Andrey Belevantsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have tried to reorganize the check so that the "e->src->next_bb ==
e->dest" condition is checked for all edges (see the patch below). Of
course, GCC does not bootstrap with this patch, triggering an assert of
incorrect fallthru block in
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then check it in. I think that would help
On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Peter Leven wrote:
I have searched the bug archive as well as the mailing lists to see
whether I could find more information about whether the second
feature of -I- will continue to be supported (and, if so, under
what option). I found one bug in the database: #
Hello Everyone,
I am trying to understand GCC further, and I would like to know how
GCC calls the parser from the main function in gcc.c. I looked at the
YACC/BISON file and found that c_parse_file called yyparse(). Can
anyone please tell me which function calls c_parse_file and how I can
get
Steven Bosscher wrote:
No. The condition you're checking is simply not true in cfglayout
mode. The whole point of cfglayout mode is to get rid of the
requirement that basic blocks are serial. That means a fallthru edge
in cfglayout mode doesn't have to go to next_bb. It can go to *any*
bb.
Yes, b
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070302 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070302/
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
Balaji Viswanathan Iyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to understand GCC further, and I would like to know how
> GCC calls the parser from the main function in gcc.c.
The gcc driver execs another program, which for C is called cc1. The
main function in cc1 winds up calling the pa
-> http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html
Failed Validation of W3C !
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional !
W3C rules specify that XHTML tags have to be written in lowercase.
You have just to replace every "DIV" by "div" and validation will succeed.
All the best. :-)
___
On 3/2/07, Michel Pellegrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html
Failed Validation of W3C !
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional !
W3C rules specify that XHTML tags have to be written in lowercase.
You have just to replace every "DIV" by "div" and v
Hi,
Trunk GCC shows massive (2 compile-time and 6 run-time) failures on SPEC
CPU2000 and CPU2006 at i386 and x86_64 on -O2 optimization level.
Regression introduced somewhere between revision 122487 and 122478.
There are three checkins, candidates for the root of regression:
http://gcc
41 matches
Mail list logo
