Philippe Schaffnit wrote:
Sorry about the (possibly off) question: would this apply also to
GMP/MPFR, if not, wouldn't it make sense?
It wouldn't make sense -- GMP and MPFR are never linked into the
compiled output at all. (They're only used within the compiler itself,
for processing constan
Oops! Thanks a lot for your reply.
Philippe
Brooks Moses wrote:
>
> Philippe Schaffnit wrote:
> > Sorry about the (possibly off) question: would this apply also to
> > GMP/MPFR, if not, wouldn't it make sense?
>
> It wouldn't make sense -- GMP and MPFR are never linked into the
> compiled outp
Sorry about the (possibly off) question: would this apply also to
GMP/MPFR, if not, wouldn't it make sense?
GMP and MPFR are host libraries, so it is actually an independent
issue. However, it might be worth having --with-static-gmp and
--with-static-mpfr to request static linking of these libra
Bonsoir monsieur,
je viens par ce mail solliciter votre aide pour l'exécution d'une
transaction financière. J'aimerais investir dans l'immobilier ou un
domaine prospère dans votre pays
que vous pourrez me conseiller. J'ai sept millions cinq cents mille dollars
américains
($7,500,000.00 U
On 4/23/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/23/07 14:40:
> Any references?
Yes, at the last HiPEAC conference Grigori Fursin presented their
interactive compilation interface, which could be used for this.
http://gcc-ici.sourceforge.net/
That work is pa
Hi everyone,
Although I'm seeing this on 3.3.3, it appears to be determined by the
backend, so I think it's still reasonable to ask:
I have some code that calls __builtin_ffs, but entirely on compile-time
constants. When I compile it (using an inhouse custom ELF-target backend)
with -O
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 10:55:56AM +0200, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> >Sorry about the (possibly off) question: would this apply also to
> >GMP/MPFR, if not, wouldn't it make sense?
>
> GMP and MPFR are host libraries, so it is actually an independent
> issue. However, it might be worth havin
Hi,
Something broke the bitfield handling recently and before I delve deeper
into it, I'm hoping someone admits guilt. :)
This is taken from execute/20040709-1.c:
struct K { unsigned int k : 6, l : 1, j : 10, i : 15; };
struct K retmeK (struct K x)
{
return x;
}
This produces the following c
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, I wrote:
> simply copying values like this it's overkill, what makes this worse is
> that the rtl optimizers can often do as much with this (and in combination
^ not
> with subreg it's not getting better...)
This should make more sens
Hi all,
I am working with GCC 4.1.1, I need some clarification for the DWARF
information generated by this sample Program,
#include
int fun(const char*, ...);
/* Variadic function */
int fun(const char *raj,...)
{
return 9;
}
int main()
{
fun("Hello world",3,2);
return 0;
}
For the s
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is taken from execute/20040709-1.c:
>
> struct K { unsigned int k : 6, l : 1, j : 10, i : 15; };
> struct K retmeK (struct K x)
> {
> return x;
> }
>
> This produces the following code:
>
> retmeK:
> link.w %fp,#0
> move.l %d3,-(%sp
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although I'm seeing this on 3.3.3, it appears to be determined by the
> backend, so I think it's still reasonable to ask:
>
> I have some code that calls __builtin_ffs, but entirely on compile-time
> constants. When I compile it (using an inhouse cus
"Uros Bizjak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello!
>
>> I'm particularly interested in this patch
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01128.html); pretty
> nice for
>> users of Pentium 3 and Athlon. Has it been or will it be integrated into
>> mainline?
>
> This
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Prince wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where is gstdint.h ? Does it acctually exist ?
libdecnumber seems to use it.
decimal32|64|128.h's include decNumber.h which includes deccontext.h
which includes gstdint.h
When you configure libdecnumber (e.g. by running to
On 24 April 2007 15:34, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Dave Korn" writes:
>
>> Although I'm seeing this on 3.3.3, it appears to be determined by the
>> backend, so I think it's still reasonable to ask:
>>
>> I have some code that calls __builtin_ffs, but entirely on compile-time
>> constants. W
> > .file ""
> > foo.global _ffs
>
> Is this really a reference? It just looks like a declaration. A
> typical ELF assembler will not generate an undefined symbol merely
> because it sees a .global pseudo-op.
I think gas 2.17 counts as a "typical ELF assembler". It does create und
On 24 April 2007 15:50, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 24 April 2007 15:34, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> It looks like this comes from an inappropriate call to
>> assemble_external. You should find out what is calling that for _ffs.
Heh, surely you mean "You should find out what is calling that, ffs"!
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Even without this bug gcc usage of bitfield instruction has become a
> > little insane lately, e.g. 2.95/3.4 produce this code:
> >
> > retmeK:
> > link.w %a6,#0
> > move.l 8(%a6),%d0
> > unlk %a6
> > rts
>
> FWI
On 24 April 2007 15:52, Paul Brook wrote:
>>> .file ""
>>> foo.global _ffs
>>
>> Is this really a reference? It just looks like a declaration. A
>> typical ELF assembler will not generate an undefined symbol merely
>> because it sees a .global pseudo-op.
>
> I think gas 2.17 cou
> > There was a patch to the c++ frontend recently to avoid a similar problem
> > with EH personality routines.
>
> Couldn't see what you're referring to in cp/ChangeLog straight away, have
> you got a pointer/rough date/search term I can use?
Ah, it wasn't actually the c++ forntend:
2007-03-19
What is the policy concerning the usage of SAVE_EXPRs? Who is
responsible for inserting them? I thought the respective language
front end were responsible to enclose any expressions with side
effects this way, so that later parts of GCC know how to treat these
expressions right.
However, also som
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > .file ""
> > > foo.global _ffs
> >
> > Is this really a reference? It just looks like a declaration. A
> > typical ELF assembler will not generate an undefined symbol merely
> > because it sees a .global pseudo-op.
>
> I think gas 2.17
On Apr 24, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Wolfgang Gellerich wrote:
What is the policy concerning the usage of SAVE_EXPRs?
Roughly, if you do something like:
tree foo(a, b)
return build (a, b);
You don't need any saving. If you do:
tree foo(a, b)
return build (a, build (a, b));
You need to
"H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 24/04/2007 01:03:25:
...
>
> There are
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] vect]$ cat pmovzxbw.c
> typedef unsigned char vec_t;
> typedef unsigned short vecx_t;
>
> in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31667
>
By the way, this PR says "Integer externsions ar
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:55:24PM +0300, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 24/04/2007 01:03:25:
> ...
> >
> > There are
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] vect]$ cat pmovzxbw.c
> > typedef unsigned char vec_t;
> > typedef unsigned short vecx_t;
> >
> > in
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.
Hello,
I have just created a new branch for development of C++0x-specific
features in the GNU C++ front end. The branch is branches/cxx0x-branch
in Subversion, and information about this branch is available at
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html.
The intent of this branch is to collect all of
I'd going to make a change to the policy for setting priorities for PRs
in Bugzilla, to try to help address two issues that have been raised:
1. There may be vitally important bugs that are not regressions, and
therefore do not get visibility before releases. (We have, in past,
allowed changes on
[I apologize to those of you receiving duplicate copies of this mail. I
thought so hard about copying people that I forgot to address to the list.]
Table of contents:
1. PRs
2. Schedule
3. Rationale
If you're in the CC: list, there are possible action items for you
below. (Recent feedback was
On 24 April 2007 16:00, Dave Korn wrote:
> I'd say that I've inherited a thinko-fied version of ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't have an ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL at all. What I do
have, however, is TARGET_ASM_GLOBALIZE_LABEL, which appears to somehow be
equated with ASM_OUTPUT_EXT
On 4/24/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. PR 30222: crash on gcc.target/i386/vectorize1.c
This PR is apparently due to only part of a mainline patch being applied
to 4.2. It was so diagnosed in December 2006, but nobody has identified
the missing part of the mainline patch. Andre
30 matches
Mail list logo
