I am still porting gcc v4.1.2 to a new risc architecture, and this
time my problem is that when compiling with -O2 turned on, every insn
with a (use ..) side effect expression, eg.
(define_expand "sibcall"
[(parallel [(call (match_operand 0 "" "")
(match_operand 1 "" ""))
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
checking dynamic linker characteristics... no
checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
checking for shl
Jie Zhang wrote:
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
checking dynamic linker characteristics... no
checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediat
Hello,
Apologies if this has already been covered; I've searched the archives
and not found anything.
I have some code that needs to perform signed division by a power of two
with rounding towards minus infinity, i.e. it requires an arithmetic
right shift. Now in the C specification, right shift
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
checking dynamic linker characteristics... no
checking how to hardcode library paths int
Christopher Key wrote:
> I have some code that needs to perform signed division by a power of two
> with rounding towards minus infinity, i.e. it requires an arithmetic
> right shift. Now in the C specification, right shifting a signed
> integer is implementation defined.
Because C may be compil
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Jie
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Bernd
--
This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6 80807 Muenchen
Sitz
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Stupid double negatives. Okay, so then your problem is that
g
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:27:18PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Jie Zhang wrote:
> > Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >> Jie Zhang wrote:
> >>> But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
> >>
> >> ??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
> >>
> > Oops, I
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:55:45PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
From config.log:
/home/rask/build/gcc-bfin-unknown-elf/gcc/../ld/ld-new:
cannot open linke
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:55:45PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
> libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
> saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
>From config.log:
/home/rask/build/gcc-bfin-unknown-elf/gcc/../ld/ld-new:
cannot open linker script file bf532.ld: No such f
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are
avoided.
Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Stupid double negativ
Hello,
I assume that this is the correct mailing list to ask this, as opposed
to a Cpp list, since it appears to me that this is compiler-related.
1)
class foo
{
int priv;
public:
void bar();
};
Supposing i am writing the definition of foo::bar, and i want to change
the private
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:27:18PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I m
On 18 September 2007 14:59, Ioannis Gyftos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I assume that this is the correct mailing list to ask this, as opposed
> to a Cpp list, since it appears to me that this is compiler-related.
But this isn't a mailing list for general how-to-use-the compiler questions,
this is a ma
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Stupid double negatives. Okay, so then y
I have investigated it further, and thought I'd add it to my question.
I have tried compiling with all optimization flags turned on manually
(list included below) and that compiles just fine. That leads me to
think that what is causing the bug is some undocumented optimization,
triggered only if o
"Tomas Svensson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am still porting gcc v4.1.2 to a new risc architecture, and this
> time my problem is that when compiling with -O2 turned on, every insn
> with a (use ..) side effect expression, eg.
>
> (define_expand "sibcall"
> [(parallel [(call (match_operand
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
bfin-elf-gcc -mfdpic failed to link a simple test case because code is
put into L1 instruction sram and data is put into L1 data sram, but
Blackfin immediate offset load instruction cannot access GOT since the
gap between instruction sram and data sram is
Hello,
I have a bunch of command line programs and I am trying to support
Windows, Linux and an older version of Solaris.
I got the same version of gcc working on all 3 platforms.
Now the problem is that I can't get getopt_long to work which is
provided by getopt.h.
I don't know much about how al
> I saw getopt.h, getopt.c, and getopt1.c in my gcc directory under
> libiberty. What are these for?
Those are for building gcc itself. They're not normally used by
applications, unless you want to import all of libiberty into your
application. Normally, glibc provides the getopt family of fun
"Frederich, Eric P21322" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a bunch of command line programs and I am trying to support
> Windows, Linux and an older version of Solaris.
> I got the same version of gcc working on all 3 platforms.
>
> Now the problem is that I can't get getopt_long to work which
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:19:37PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> >The file bf532.ld is nowhere to be found in gcc or newlib/libgloss.
> >
> I have not pushed out our recent newlib/libgloss changes to upstream
> yet. Currently you could get latest blackfin port newlib/
Tim Prince wrote:
> Christopher Key wrote:
>
>
>> I have some code that needs to perform signed division by a power of two
>> with rounding towards minus infinity, i.e. it requires an arithmetic
>> right shift. Now in the C specification, right shifting a signed
>> integer is implementation def
Tomas Svensson wrote:
I have tried compiling with all optimization flags turned on manually
(list included below) and that compiles just fine. That leads me to
think that what is causing the bug is some undocumented optimization,
triggered only if optimize > 0.
There is no optimization at all w
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:09:18PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:19:37PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
> > Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> > >The file bf532.ld is nowhere to be found in gcc or newlib/libgloss.
> > >
> > I have not pushed out our recent newlib/libgl
Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I think this is a latent bug in var-tracking.c. It's getting confused
>> by the negative offsets in:
>>
>> (insn:HI 17 47 19 4 /tmp/foo.c:11 (set (reg:DI 26 26 [orig:124 tmp+-7 ]
>> [124])
>> (lshiftrt:DI (reg:DI 31
Richard,
There seems to be a small problem with the MIPS atomic memory operations
patch I recently committed
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01290.html), in that on a
dual CPU machine it does not quite work.
You can look at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33479#c3 f
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:12:48PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> I guess my basic question is: Should MIPS_COMPARE_AND_SWAP have a 'sync'
> after
> the 'sc'? I would have thought that 'sc' made the write visible to all CPUs,
> but on the SB1 it appears not to be the case.
Yes, a barrier of some
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
/home/rask/build/gcc-bfin-unknown-elf/gcc/../ld/ld-new:
crt532.o: No such file: No such file or directory
I sorted that out by using your config/bfin/elf.h, but there's something
weird. The first time configure runs, it will complain about
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES b
Apologies for using the wrong mailing list. Thanks for your time!
Ioannis
32 matches
Mail list logo
