What's going on here? I'm expecting the answer 0, but get 2.
#include
int main(){
unsigned x=1;
printf("%u\n",(x<<33));
/* outputs "2" on gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32 */
/*
[#4] The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit
positions; vacated bits are filled with zeros. If E1 has a
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:38:03AM -0400, Ken Takusagawa wrote:
> What's going on here? I'm expecting the answer 0, but get 2.
>
> #include
> int main(){
> unsigned x=1;
> printf("%u\n",(x<<33));
> /* outputs "2" on gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32 */
>
> /*
>[#4] The result of E1 << E2 is E1 l
On 4/13/07, Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:38:03AM -0400, Ken Takusagawa wrote:
> What's going on here? I'm expecting the answer 0, but get 2.
>
> #include
> int main(){
> unsigned x=1;
> printf("%u\n",(x<<33));
> /* outputs "2" on gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32 *
On 12 April 2007 22:22, FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi all,
> Note2: I also omitted a couple of gfortran.dg/secnds.f failures; this
> testcase should be reworked
I was about to report that myself! Both secnds.f /and/ secnds-1.f have some
kind of race condition or indeterminacy.
cheers,
Da
(define_insn "adddi3_internal_1"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=d,&d")
(plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "0,d")
(match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "d,d")))
(clobber (match_operand:SI 3 "register_operand" "=d,d"))]
"!TARGET_64BIT &
> * powerpc-apple-darwin8.5.0: gfortran.dg/edit_real_1.f90
I don't see these failures on my weekly snapshot build on OSX 10.3.9
(nor in a month old build on OSX 10.4.8 or 9, cannot remember).
Could it be related to 10.4.5 gcc failures gcc.dg/torture/builtin-pow-mpfr-1.c
and gcc.dg/torture/builtin-
"Fu, Chao-Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After tracing GCC 4.x to see why MADD is not generated for MIPS32,
> I found out the main issue is that the pattern "adddi3"
> is not available for MIPS32. Because the missing
> of adddi3, GCC 4.x needs to split 64-bit addition to 4 separate
> RTL in
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 4/12/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/12/07, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An interesting observation is that the more hard registers the
processor
> has, the bigger slowdown is. Although it might be a coincidence.
Yes, I noticed
Richard Sandiford wrote:
As far as madd goes, I think it would be better to either
(a) get combine to handle this situation or (b) get expand
to generate a fused multiply-add from the outset.
(b) sounds like it might be useful in its own right. At the moment we
treat the generation of floati
Nigel Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I agree with you philosophically, it feels like (b) might be quite
> a major task. A number of optimisation passes which currently recognise
> and MUL and PLUS separately (e.g. loop strength reduction) would now
> need to be extended to handle t
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Nigel Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
While I agree with you philosophically, it feels like (b) might be quite
a major task. A number of optimisation passes which currently recognise
and MUL and PLUS separately (e.g. loop strength reduction) would now
need to
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:31:36PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00738.html
Ok.
r~
Hi,
while waiting for my copyright assignment, I continued compiling gcc
with a C++ compiler. Most problems are minor, but now I encountered one
where I am unsure what to do:
The basic tree codes are defined by the enum tree_code, that basically
looks like this:
enum tree_code {
LAST_AND_
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (define_insn "adddi3_internal_1"
> > [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=d,&d")
> > (plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "0,d")
> > (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "d,d")))
> >(clobber (match_
This should be a post-reload (i.e. predicated on reload_completed)
split, I think.
Actually, with the relatively recent lower-subreg work, it is
desirable to split this sort of instruction before reload. That is,
do an unconditional split.
Right. Combine cannot cope with the resulting 4-in
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This should be a post-reload (i.e. predicated on reload_completed)
>>> split, I think.
>>
>> Actually, with the relatively recent lower-subreg work, it is
>> desirable to split this sort of instruction before reload. That is,
>> do an unconditional sp
Dave Korn wrote:
On 12 April 2007 22:22, FX Coudert wrote:
Note2: I also omitted a couple of gfortran.dg/secnds.f failures; this
testcase should be reworked
I was about to report that myself! Both secnds.f /and/ secnds-1.f have some
kind of race condition or indeterminacy.
It's an indeter
On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You don't need to do all this, You can just use variable with MASK
which was added by JSM when PPC64-linux-gnu's target bits overflowed.
-- Pinski
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You don't need to do all this, You can just use variable with MASK
> which was added by JSM when PPC64-linux-gnu's target bits overflowed.
For i386, we are adding new target mask b
I have added the design document and links to most of the discussions
we've had so far. Aldy updated the document to reflect the latest thread.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/tuples
On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You don't need to do all this, You can just use variable with MASK
> which was added by JSM when PPC64-linux-gnu's target bits overf
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 02:13:34PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> You don't need to do all this, You can just use variable
On 4/13/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But this option isn't needed before.
This option should have been there anyways, I don't understand why the
option does not exist.
-- Pinski
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070413 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070413/
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
